Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 March 18 March >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham Friedman[edit]

Avraham Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one-line article was created and listed as unreferenced in December 2009, and has had 2 edits since then, neither of which have added content. The subject is listed at the parent page, Hebrew Theological College, also as a one-line mention. Until biographical details become available, it does not meet WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Rosh yeshiva is comparable to a dean of a college, from what I understand, and the latter is considered notable here on Wikipedia. I added one source and will add more when time permits.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Brew, who I think is correct, though I'm willing to have my mind changed if editors can show me he is wrong. Someone might consider pinging[I've pinged] DGG on this issue, as I know he has spent a lot of time considering the issue of notability of schools and academics, and might have some thoughts from other similar AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is a WP:NOTABLE person as a living rosh yeshiva of a famous institution in the Chicago area, a double rarity in itself! These types of rabbinic personalities do not generate news which makes it harder to find more quotes and sources because they keep a low profile as they do their work as key living Talmudists and teachers of Orthodox and Haredi Jews. At this time I have added more material to this article and it can be improved even further with time. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While we may consider a Rosh yeshiva comparable to a dean, a small religious college (in this case, one that has <200 undergrads) does not qualify as "a major academic institution", as described in WP:PROF #6. Consequently, the subject is not notable for his position per se and the article does not make any other claim to notability. The other problem here is that there are no acceptable sources. The Hamodia article is a trivial mention, the sum total of which is "Hebrew Theological College reminds the community that Rosh Yeshivah Rabbi Avraham Friedman continues his weekly Gemara shiur each Sunday", and the other 2 are a webpage from his school and a mention in the school's newspaper, neither of them being authoritative sources that are independent of the subject. (Note that the newspaper article has been cited twice, giving the appearance of 2 separate sources.) These 2 docs really do not confirm anything more than existence. IZAK is basically arguing once again that we waive the requirement of having sources for a WP:BLP, but I don't think that can be done legitimately. So, it seems that this article is another one that boils down to the question of whether we will follow our own rules regarding keeping or deleting a WP:BLP. With all due respect, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The "major" of criteria #6 does not necessarily refer to the amount of enrolled students but to the prominence of the institution.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are certainly clear-cut cases of a "major academic institution" (most research universities, for example), and there certainly are borderline cases (arguably, many undergrad liberal arts colleges). Conversely, most small religious colleges like HTC are not considered as such, for reasons variously including small enrollment, narrow focus of study, lack of significant research or other notable scholarly impact, lack of division-level athletics, lack of national visibility, and so on and so forth. You can check numerous similarly-categorized colleges of other religious persuasions, like Grace Bible College or Bethany Lutheran College, and you'll likewise find that their leaders are not considered to be notable per se. I'm afraid that that is the clear-cut case here, as well. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Agri, hi there. 1. Firstly, put rules aside and use logic and common sense first! Please don't lose a sense of proportion when dealing with Jews and especially Orthodox Jews. While there are 7 Billion humans, there are only about 13 Million Jews and perhaps not more than 1 Million Orthodox Jews, so that 200 students in an Orthodox institution is the equivalent of a good mid-size college in the USA. 2. Additionally, and this is well-known, rosh yeshivas and truly famous Orthodox rabbis do not seek publicity, in fact they run from it, so that it becomes paradoxical that the most famous and top Orthodox scholars have fewer articles about them, while minor nobody publicity hounds get articles that do not reflect the reality of the situation. 3. Finally, WP is in the process of building up good material about notable scholars and we need to get into building-mode and not run to chop down valuable and encyclopedic articles before their time. If this were a truly insignificant person I would be the first to have the article deleted, but that is not the case, and each case must be judged on its merits with intelligent input from experienced Judaic editors who after all are the ones building up this esoteric topic on this encyclopedia. Thanks for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So, in other words, we should make exceptions in WP policy for Orthodox rabbis that (1) these individuals must be notable, and (2) that there must be reliable, authoritative sources to back up claims of notability. This is basically special pleading. How do you square your argument with my observation that non-Jewish leaders of small non-Jewish religious colleges are not notable? I think this comes down to a simple assessment based on WP policy: are there or are there not reliable sources that indicate notability? And, in this case, the answer is clearly no. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • No Agri, you are missing the point here altogether. What I am saying is that we should not lose sight of reality and the real world simply because WP has made up "rules" -- rules are fine as long as they can help convey the truth and reality of phenomena and people, while "verifiability" should not be allowed to twist our minds and make us into slavish robots like bureaucrats lost in a world of artificial rules, when we need to be creative writers and contributors to a growing encyclopedia that is still under construction. Don't get me wrong either, I am not saying to deny WP rules, all rules are important but they cannot "dictate" how creativity should function. In this case, we have a few hooks at least to hang the start of this article on. I am a great believer in the process of construction and building good stuff, while junk should be thrown overboard, in this case, and others like it, it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Bottom line, I adhere to Inclusionism, and I advise you to read Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, especially if this is not your particular area of expertise based on your editing history. IZAK (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep In actual practice, I think the head of any college, however small, is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.(and that Yeshivas of this sort are essentially colleges). whether Deans are depend on the nature of the school and their function, because some are minor officials--but I think it's correct that a rosh yeshiva is the head of the school. For those who think it applies only to major yeshivas, how do we distinguish which ones are major. It's prestige as well as size, and I don't think there are any formal ratings. At this point, whether there are accessible secondary sources is a matter of chance, and I don't think the use of the GNG is rational here in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the (lack of) sources? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

There have been many points of contention in this debate. A summary of each is provided below:

  • WP:GNG: Many sources provided; satisfies the four basic criteria, though the fifth (significant coverage in independent reliable sources is only a presumption of notability) is what is at stake.
  • WP:UNDUE: Not a valid reason for deletion, as it governs sections in a larger article, not stand-alone articles. The arguments given to this end sound a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
  • WP:NOTNEWS/WP:EVENT: The long-term impact of these effects on the VG industry has been called into question. Although a few experts have speculated on long-term implications, it is not enough to establish the long-term viability of the topic. According to WP:EFFECT, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Consequently, there is no consensus on this point.
  • WP:SYNTH: There is a dearth of sources addressing the topic as a whole; the MSNBC source is the only one presented in this AfD that appears to do so. No consensus here.

Overall, despite a large numerical majority to keep, the "keep" side has not fully addressed the issues raised by the "delete" side. Hence the result.

Note that there was substantial support for a selective merge into Economic impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami if/when it is created. This option may be discussed on the talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry[edit]

Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The earthquake is having an impact on all sorts of industries. Giving undue attention to the video game industry is not a neutral point of view. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - First, you did this way wrong. You nominated the talkpage for deletion. I think someone who nominated so many articles for deletion would not have made this mistake. Secondly, we were having a merge discussion on the talkpage of the article, so it is somewhat disruptive to cut off that discussion and start a new one. Thirdly, there are plenty of sources covering this, and it meets notability requirements. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST doesn't mean this shouldn't. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Am I to understand that I am obligated to not make this article if other editors have failed to make articles for their respective industries? All content is verified by reliable sources, and fulfills the notability criteria. I also must strongly criticize the fact that you are proposing the deletion of legitimate content instead of contributing to the discussion of whether to merge into a general entertainment industry impact article or an economic impact article. And I must further point out that efforts have been made to make articles about other industries. Additionally, NPOV has nothing to do with the existence of articles. The nutshell description: "This page in a nutshell: Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." The article is from a neutral point of view, it represents all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. We are not giving our own personal POVs in this article. All content is verified and focuses on the reliable sources' POV and determination of notability. If we had no articles on PlayStation 2 games and many on Wii games, would that be undue weight? No, it would just mean that editors have no taken the initiative to cover other aspects. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cannot be considered in isolation as it is a fork of the main article about the earthquake. WP:UNDUE states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.". The main article says nothing at all about the impact on the videogames industry. If that is the correct proportion of significance then it is disproportionate to have a whole article about this minor detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can verify that it is not minor by the significant coverage that it has received. That it is not covered in any main article is due to the fact that no one has taken the initiative to do so yet. It is clearly verifiable and notable, so the only problem is that no one has taken the initiative to add to the main article, not that the main article has no place for mention of this content. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:UNDUE refers to content disparity within the article, not between different pages. That would be WP:BIAS. UNDUE is a policy on NPOV within the article, BIAS is an essay about inevitable editor preference of editing what they wish. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the above arguments, it seems that the nominator has gotten the WP policy on this wrong. There is not a risk of WP:UNDUE to all of Wikipidia because some articles exist and others do not. The criterium should be notability of the subject. In my mind, this subject has been covered extensively by many well reputed and major RSs, and it's notability is established.LedRush (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Am I even allowed to vote? I don't know, but the article should be deleted on the basis of its enduring notability. The fact that video game releases were delayed, game servers were down, and share prices fell are all facts any reasonably knowledgeable person could pretty much deduce without being told. It's effectively a recap of recent business news. WP:NOTNEWS 24.69.71.254 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are allowed to vote yes, though I must note that this is not a vote but a debate where the final result will be weighed on the evidence provided. There are industry experts speculating on the long-term effect of the disaster, verifying that this article will more likely have enduring notability than not; and there is content on contributions from the industry for the relief effort, which has nothing to do with business news. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for helping me understand this process. But with respect, news of contributions from businesses to disaster relief IS business news. As well as turning a profit, it is a normal function of businesses to donate to charitable causes. 24.69.71.254 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • A number of the donations were zero profit - Zynga, Capcom, and Sega all assigned all profits made from specific products or games to donations for the tsunami relief. Additionally, an individual member of Game Informer is auctioning her autographed Nintendo DS for a sum that will be donated to the fund, which is irrelevant to business. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • But news of an individual making a charitable contribution is relevant to Wikipedia??? I am afraid I have wasted too much time on this today so I think I will simply finish by saying it is normal to expect that the operations of business be disrupted in the event of a natural disaster. This is notable enough for a news article, but not an encyclopaedia article. 24.69.71.254 (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into a Economic impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami article, as is discussed on the talk page. There has been an international impact on the auto industry already, with US plants shutting down that relied on Japanese plants. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge if not deleted altogether, however you'd have to find someone to actually want to write the proposed article... I am pessimistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.71.254 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By merging "up" now you would create an article that is no longer WP:NPOV and is WP:UNDUE, as it would now cover video gaming in much greater detail than anything else. Hence the current topic/title. When and if the main article is written, we can discuss merging/parenting. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you slap a giant {{underconstruction}} on it, and fill in some parts with {{emptysection}}... you'll get the skeleton of a greater article. Then it's just editorial and contribution work to balance out the article by creating more content to show other impacts. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Perhaps the paragraph detailing all the held back titles due to the crisis could be made into a list, but there's a plenitude of sources and significant data. The claims for deletion are somewhat refuted by the "See also:" article linked at the bottom of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentysixpurple (talk • contribs) 04:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: As per my discussion in the talk page, I feel that this article is not really necessary. Simply putting the information on the appropriate pages (for example, game delays on the particular game pages), writing a brief summary in the main article, and including charitable contributions from gaming-related sources in the humanitarian article is my stance on it. The information should be included on Wikipedia, I just don't think it should be in this article. It reads less like an encyclopedic article (which should be written based on long-term notability and impact) and more as a splash page for WikiNews. In the long term, I could see it being merged into an economic impact article as well, but it feels like this article suffers from recentism and undue weight. There's plenty of coverage, sure, but is it really necessary to have this on its own article and not have the information distributed in more appropriate places? I think not. Dragonmaw (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information IS on the appropriate pages - the game articles, and this article. The game cancellations are all linked together as a single event, which more than warrants an article. The article has been steadily growing, and shows no indication of stopping. This is also particularly different from your original concerns, where you were concerned with it being in bad taste or being an effort by video game efforts to supposedly make Wikipedia a "video game enthusiast site". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I clarified my concerns on the talk page. This is what discussions are for, after all. If you want to get snippy because I happened to elucidate my concerns on "appearing like a video game enthusiast site," then I think you have bigger issues to deal with. As I read and talked things over, I came to a clearer position on the subject. Don't focus so much on original positions. Focus on what people are saying NOW. Otherwise you appear overly pedantic and not really interested in advancing the discussion. Dragonmaw (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no policy about overlapping (i.e. redundant) material being inappropriate. Both the game/company articles and this page can list delays/cancellations/etc. As I've replied on this page elsewhere, UNDUE is not BIAS. Article is NPOV, because it covers its topic (aftermath on video game industry) from a neutral video gaming perspective. Nobody having written an article on other industries or topics is BIAS, but that is not notability criteria. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to the relevant articles (such as Economic impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which should be created, or delete if it was spun out from those articles in the first place). This is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. The impression given is that people care more about this article than working on the main article about the event. Not that similar, but in the same vein, was Library damage resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. That stuck out like a sore thumb at the time, and I nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library damage resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. I was considering doing the same here. There is more than enough to do on the article about the event, without distracting sub-articles like this. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Agree entirely with what MickMackNee says here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to make a long reply, but I realized that nothing you say appeals to any guideline or policy. Show me one thing in your argument that isn't based on emotional reaction or censoring controversial articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, this article is not controversial. Just ill-judged and poorly timed. It is, as the nominator pointed out, an undue focus on a small area of this disaster. When the 'economic impact' article is created, this article will likely be merged there. Wikipedia is not, contrary to what some people think, edited by policy diktat. It is edited by users who exercise judgment about what to include when and where, and who sometimes disagree over those instances of what is known as editorial judgment. It is not, I must emphasise again, necessary to justify everything with a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Sometimes common sense is enough. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC) PS. Your signature is rather long.[reply]
        • Why will it likely be merged there? And why is your argument so haphazardly flipflopping? You go from claiming that it will give Wikipedia a bad impression to using the patently inane argument that giving such focus to this subject is distracting (what does that even mean? Is the main article screeching to a halt due to this article?) to "it's common sense". Can you tell me what this article has to fulfill? Let's look at the list...
#Fulfills WP:V
  1. Fulfills [{WP:N]]
  2. Fulfills WP:OR
Care to tell me what we have to fulfill yet?
Overall, I'm questioning why a quite large article was brought to deletion based on a misinterpretation of policies and guidelines. It is entirely inappropriate for this to be discussed here. If we're going to mention undue weight, we'll also mention the undue weight that such a large article would create if it were merged. Fact of the matter is that people have said "give it time to grow and expand and if nothing comes of it, then we can merge", and the answer became "nope". Always inspiring to see the response in this kind of community to be completely and utterly anti-communal. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy which is being violated here is WP:NPOV which is a core policy. As explained above, this states "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance". So, it is not enough that content be verifiable; it must be proportionate too. When one browses general news coverage for effects of the earthquake, the industries that show up include: insurance; forex; commodities, electronics, components, automobile, travel and nuclear. Videogames do not appear that I've seen. Your efforts seem to be based upon your personal interest in this aspect and, by seeking out and cherry-picking news items related to this interest, you create the appearance of an effect which the world does not recognise as significant. This has the nature of improper synthesis. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (essay, yes): "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" Looks remarkably similar to your argument. Did I write any references included? Nope. You are clearly lacking in ANY understanding of WP:NPOV, which seeks to keep editors' POVs, not an "unbalanced coverage of a subject". I would be lying if I said that the truthfulness and notability of this article wasn't blatantly demonstrated in the dozens upon dozens of reliable sources that cover the impact on the video game industry in depth. I created it because other, unaffiliated parties discussed it. And yes, I created it because of a personal interest in a subject. To reiterate how utterly inane your argument is, if there is a disproportionate number of articles of Wii games versus PS3 games, what is the appropriate action? Explain to me why the appropriate action is to delete content, not make content to make the coverage more broad. I'm sorry that people into automobiles and people into electronics didn't have the initiative to make the respective articles for their hobbies. I do not take responsibility for them our their hobby, and a demonstratively notable article does not, either. And I recommend you actually learn what Synthesis entails - it is the act of taking two sources and coming to a personal deduction that, even though it may be very probable or even true, is not covered in the two sources. This is looking at many reliable sources covering the subject in non-trivial detail - AOL, MSNBC, Wired, Kotaku, IGN, GameSpy, Shacknews, The Telegraph, etc. all cover it in significant detail. Oh, by the way, you forgot to put citation needed next to your comment of what people see as important sectors affected. Your personal opinion is trumped by the fact that reliable sources DO think that the impact on the industry is significant - MSNBC even did an article detailing many different impacts of the industry in one. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with the article, it passes any policy or guideline you care to throw at it. The delete argument is based purely on emotion; about it being too soon or showing WP in a bad light. The original nomination based on NPOV is wrong. NPOV doesn't apply to the article in comparison to other articles; just because similar articles haven't been created. If its deleted on that basis, it will effectively be saying that no article can be created on WP unless you have created articles covering every other aspect of an event or occurrence. - X201 (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I saw the the article earlier today and I was like "well isn't this a bit too specific?". Then I read the article and saw it was very well sourced, and far from WP:TRIVIA. It's not like the Japanese videogame industry is small, and we do have similar articles on things like List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks which is very similar to this one. Maybe the article can be enlarged to the "japanese entertainment industry" in general, but that's another debate. Hence resounding keep. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is a synthesis of sources talking about disparate topics, and does not assert significance. The first sentence is marked with {{citation needed}}; afaics, none of the sources used support the proposition of this article. Show me some in-depth independent media that is writing about this niche topic. Not the industry talking about itself. Someone outside the industry who has seen this as a significant aspect. Even that would only justify a mention in the main article. To justify a full article about this, you would need a chapter in a book. The video game industry contributed, and they were affected. That does not distinguish them from all the other major industries in Japan. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • [1] - literally two seconds of work to find this link in the very article you were reading. This is written by someone outside the industry. So is the link to The Telegraph, and the link to Wired. And I love your arbitrary "chapter of a book" threshold. Since no book covers the tsunami at all, that's pretty much a call to delete all articles, wouldn't you agree? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a blog, written by people inside the industry. Please take the time to understand my rationale before you post comments which demonstrate my point. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have fun demonstrating to me that the simple nature of being a blog makes it an inappropriate source. Are you arguing that MSNBC does not have proper editorial oversight of the content it posts? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Blogs are not suitable sources to demonstrate notability. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You completely misread, willfully or not, the intent of his comment. The MSNBC blog you are referencing is a videogame enthusiast blog, not a general-interest one (such as a newspaper). Winda Benedetti, it should be noted, has an online resume that indicates her primarily videogame enthusiast focus. As far as I can tell in your linked articles, you do not source a single non-enthusiast publication. You need to make the distinction between blogs and their owners. For example, Joystiq is run by AOL's Weblogs Inc. sub-division, but it is not AOL. Likewise, the Wired post leads to a sub-blog, as does the MSNBC post. This seems to be Vandenberg's main issue with the article: it sources entirely enthusiast press and not generally notable publications. Dragonmaw (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know, it's not exactly helping you to link to a policy that doesn't mention blogs at all. You know what'd be really cool? If we linked to something that did mention blogs. Oh, I know: WP:V. "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Please do not comment on something that you clearly have absolutely no understanding of.
              • I feel confident enough to note that videogame enthusiast press is generally not editorially controlled by their parent companies. The Huffington Post (and AOL in general) does not determine the editorial content of Joystiq. The managing editors of Joystiq do. So please do not comment on something that you yourself clearly have no understanding of. Dragonmaw (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll admit that most of the coverage of this is by enthusiasts. I will ask you why I am obligated, however, to demonstrate that she is acting with objectivity and not writing this article solely from her enthusiasm. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're being asked to demonstrate that what she (and all the other sourced articles) is writing about is generally notable enough to warrant inclusion as a separate article, rather than simply rolling the information into other articles. Since there's no sources on your page from appropriate publications given the topic (namely, general or business-oriented publications), there's not a whole lot of reason to keep this article. If you mind finding some notable sources discussing the long-term impact of the earthquake on the gaming industry, I'll change my tune to a Keep. Dragonmaw (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Focusing on video gaming industry and being from video game industry are two different things. MSNBC is not some biased blog that says other sectors are not important. The sources are independent. There are multiple sources. The coverage is definitely not trivial. Everything the GNG needs. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Vandenberg, who has very concisely and logically explained why this article should not exist, precisely that there is no independent coverage of this topic. Goodvac (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's amazing how The Telegraph and MSNBC seem to have single handedly causes this entire situation. Can you explain to me any reason why Winda Benedetti is not independent? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which The Telegraph article are you referring to? I can't see any such news piece on the article or on this AFD. The only article from The Telegraph is about a single game, and should only be used on the article about that game, as it does not provide a holistic view of the industry.
        The piece by Winda Benedetti is a blog post. She is paid to write about a very narrow topic, and she has done so. It has impacted her industry, so it is appropriate that she writes about it. It has affected many industries, so there will be other industry reporters who comment on this. That doesn't make it significant. If this piece that appeared in an 'economy', or 'world news' section of a major newspaper or magazine like The Bulletin, that would indicate it is significant. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PERNOM. There is independent coverage, unless you are suggesting the sources are involved in pushing Japan's video gaming industry's opinions on the incident. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to merge. See below. Goodvac (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's shocking how much blatant bias against the industry has been expressed in this discussion. Particularly showing is John Vandenberg arguing that because someone has expertise in the industry, they are not an independent source. It's no coincidence that we do not see this logic applied to films, electronics, or automobiles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To sum up the article: 1) Stocks fell - it's unclear what the long term impact will be on the video game industry. 2) A few games have been delayed or cancelled. 3) Companies are fundraising. Taking these in turn: 1) Lots of companies stocks fell, and it isn't clear what will happen. The bigger picture in this, and what is being reported in the press, has a lot more to do with the currency than anything specifically video game related. 2) Lots of different events and initiatives have been put back or cancelled. This is not video game specific in any way. 3) Lots of different businesses and organisations are fundraising. There is nothing specific about this industry to set apart it's efforts. To summarise - the earthquake has massively affected a lot of people and businesses, but there is nothing unique about its affects on the video game industry. This article falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Quantpole (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, it's pretty egregious how poorly most proponents of deletion/merging have responded to even the slightest notion of waiting to see how the article turns out. There's no real way to demonstrate that it does not apply to WP:RECENT if it is immediately deleted with no opportunity to improve. The fact of the matter is that you seem to be looking far outside what the actual threshold is - coverage by a reliable source, which has been demonstrated with dozens of reliable sources giving extensive, non-trivial coverage. The non-gaming oriented sources do not write these articles with the intention of covering them as part of the wider economic crisis - they cover them as exclusive articles on the impact on video games and nothing else. The fact of the matter is that, not being a print encyclopedia, there is no reason to be rushing to deleting legitimate content, a rush that is very clearly occurring. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likewise, why was there a rush to create a mostly superfluous article that has tenuous at best long-term merits? Nobody is suggesting that the content be outright deleted, just that the article itself is unnecessary and runs afoul of several principles. Plus, it looks bad and reflects poorly on Wikipedia, and in the end, people make judgement calls as to whether or not an article is appropriate. A number of people (myself included) think that this article is both logically unnecessary and emotionally inappropriate, and a number of others (yourself included) think otherwise. Dragonmaw (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I and several other editors have already explained to you that "bad taste" is not only entirely based on personal point of view, but completely inapplicable to whether something should be deleted, merged, etc. There was no rush in making a so-called superfluous article. The content had reached a certain level of notability and, as such, was split out from the userspace. To assume that just because gaming journalists are enthusiastic of what they cover that what they cover should be scrutinized is absurd. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You and several other editors also apparently fail to account for public perception as well. Even if this article didn't have a number of flaws (notably the ones listed here from those calling for deletion/merger), it would still be inappropriate and still a candidate for deletion otherwise. Why? Because people are inherently emotional beings and this article runs afoul of plenty of emotions. I've seen (and have contributed to) threads discussing how emotionally inappropriate the article is. Sources are not everything. That being said, the point of the article is the impact of the earthquake on the gaming industry. For one, we've seen only tentative speculation from random sources as to the long-term impact, and short term impact is simply not notable, as per WP:NOTNEWS. To quote: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. For two, the impact has not been noted by any sources except for enthusiast press. If it is affecting the business, where are the prominent business publications? This is such a narrowly focused topic and you seem to simply be gathering news sources for purposes of synthesis. The implication is that the earthquake will have a long-term effect, and that we should simply "wait and see" on the article. This is a disingenuous argument that aims to avoid deletion on the grounds of this not being an appropriately encyclopedic article, specifically that this article has zero sourced articles remarking on the enduring notability of the earthquake's effect on media. At least in List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks there is the notability that the world trade centers no longer exist. There's nothing like that here. Dragonmaw (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary Dragonmaw, the editors that start their comments with "Delete" are in fact calling for "outright deletion".
          Regardless, the "emotionally inappropriate" aspect of this is irrelevant to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We can go back and forth on what is emotionally appropriate, but I think it best to keep such comments out of this discussion. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
          • I don't see why. But regardless, I don't see people calling for the content of the article (the delay notifications and charity contributions) to be deleted, just the article itself. Hence the position that they are aiming for said content to be merged into other areas rather than put into a frankly embarrassing article. Dragonmaw (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) There is nothing specific to set Sand Cat or Jungle Cat from other Felis either. It does not mean they don't meet GNG. Other industries may or may not be affected. They may be more affected, they may be less afected. But that is not a WP:DEL argument. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this was such a notable topic, then there would be some sources actually talking about the effect on the video game industry holistically. As it stands we have a variety of sources reporting on different companies and different effects but none (as far as I can see) talking about this topic as a whole. The article is synthesis of reporting on different things to create a topic. I was highlighting that it is not unique to the video game industry to show that it is not an individual topic. I could well see an article on "Economic impact of the 2011 earthquake" as that is a topic which have received significant coverage. Some of the info in this article could be relevant to Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Quantpole (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be specific, it seems to be a synthesis of random reports that aims to create an impression of long-term impact without any sourced publications actually speculating on said long-term impact. It's a collection of news to advance a position, basically. Dragonmaw (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly relevant article, the fact that videogames showing natural disasters delayed their release because of the earthquake is worthy of an article alone. The rest of the article is extremely well researched. I can only assume people have said "delete" without reading it, or as a kneejerk reaction believing that it's in poor taste to write about the impact on the videogames industry when the impact on real people is so much more important. But the fact that it's more important, does not mean that an article on the impact on a particular type of business is not worthy of an article also. It is. And that is why I believe this is definitely a "keep", as would an article on the earthquake and tsunami's impact on the financial sector, tourism sector, etc etc. --Tris2000 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I suspect that there are a number of emotions involved in this overall discussion, so I'll try to stick to policy.
    A number of editors have stated that the coverage does not meet thresholds, specifically with the coverage outside the video game industry. WP:V does not state that we cannot use the industry experts to discuss the industry. Even then, we have industry's journalist talking about the industry's producers. For example, MCV, Shacknews, and Edge.
    That being said, the topic has received coverage outside gaming publications: NY Times about the N3DS, ANN about the relief efforts of the VG industry among others, TIME about the delays and server shutdowns, AOL News about the relief efforts, The Escapist about the relief efforts, Wired about the relief efforts, The Telegraph about the Motorstorm release and industry relief efforts, and USA Today about the condition of the gaming employees.
    In regard to the neutrality of the article, I think the comments about WP:NPOV are misconstruing the intent of the policy, which is mainly about presenting controversial viewpoints in a balanced manner. While I understand that the policy extends beyond that, I think this article still complies with it. The scope of the article is clearly defined and presents the relevant information without bias. The fact that other articles about the economic impact don't yet exist is no fault of the article. The information is out there, and I'm sure similar articles will be written later. WP:VG members were just the first to take the initiative. If you take a look at our Featured and Good article output, that may not surprise you.
    Regardless of all that, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete, "there is usually no need to immediately delete text than can instead be rewritten as necessary over time."
    While the main earthquake article probably doesn't mention anything about the video game industry, I assure you that it will was the article is stable. The number of third-party articles that covered the gaming industry's response is too great to ignore. I for one always leave current event articles to those more adept at dealing with such liquid articles. And I suspect that others share that view.
    In closing, I want to say that I think this AFD is premature. I concede that this article might have been created prematurely, but it quickly morphed into a quality article. Regardless of the number of voices hear, I hope that the closing admin sees the timing and the type of arguments here and realizes that this should be discussed at a later time. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • Let's dissect the linked articles a bit. None of them certainly suppose a viewpoint that the earthquake has any long-term impact. Some even state that it has little short-term impact (no 3DS delays). Out of all the sourced articles, the Wired, Telegraph, TIME, USA Today, and NY Times blogs are all gaming enthusiast sub blogs that do not remark whatsoever on the long-term impact of the quake. They are simply reporting gaming news, as that's what they do. I don't know why you listed The Escapist as an outsider source, as it is an explicitly gaming-focused source. Did you mean to put something else there? The AOL News and ANN articles are the only two outsider publications to give it any notice, but even then they are merely stating "some charity was given." Why would this deserve a separate article and not inclusion in the humanitarian response article? I can think of no particular reason. It's news and notable, but not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Could easily be rolled into the humanitarian aid one. Dragonmaw (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the nominator's rationale and most of the delete !votes seem to revolve around WP:WAX, which is laughable, and WP:UNDUE, which is misconstrued and taken out of the intent of the guideline (UNDUE refers to a POV being given excessive coverage on a specific article compared to other POVs, so citing it to justify deleting a spin-off article is just silly). I think people are looking at it too much from the perspective of the quakes and not enough from the perspective of the longer-reaching impacts it has been having. While some think it trivial to look at the video game industry so closely in light of the humanitarian aspects, that is POV in and of itself (and it's worth noting that this isn't a zero-sum game, editors aren't necessarily sacrificing work on the main articles to contribute to this one). While it is true that nearly every industry in Japan was affected, I don't think that most of them had the same impact on an individual global industry. Japan accounts for a very large portion of the global video game industry and market... I might even guess it to be almost half; this makes it a very significant event in the history of video gaming. While there may be a compelling argument that it would outscope the more broad economic impacts, there is not yet an article on that; a merger discussion would be the appropriate venue if it ever is created, and deletion now would simply throw away all of that content and attribution. If people think it is in poor taste to write about the effects of video gaming while people are suffering, they can work on the other articles (and maybe write on the other economic impacts instead of bitching about what was already written); this article is well-written and well-sourced, and WP:VG's work should be an example of how other WikiPrpjects can write about this disaster. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as bahamut0013 explains above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is astounding that this much work and quality went into such a narrow cul de sac before a proper Economic impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was created — with this material assigned its proper place in that. Its pretty sad if you think about it much. Does it mean that this generation of Wikipedians is unable to see past the game console in their living room? That's my take. This article should stand for now, but it's shameful and an absolute travesty that this material precedes serious material on the impact of the catastrope upon the Japanese economy as a whole. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shameful in your opinion. It's not yours to judge what other people do, because you are merely assuming what other people are like before you've actually met them. There's more to it than "ignorance of a humanitarian disaster". We are aware that a terrible disaster has occurred, and that human lives have been lost. However, this appeal to emotion does not mean that a topic relating to videogames that have a relation to the earthquake incident is definitely a "shameful" thing to write about in Wikipedia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Edit Conflict]Your [Carrite's] response is as insulting as it is ignorant. I would ask you to redact your comments, but your reliance on tired language used to demonize video gamers leads me to believe that your prejudice precludes reasoned discourse on this issue. That you would comment to merely hurl prejudiced insults on follow wikipedians is the real shame here.LedRush (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to echo some of Benlisquare's comments. No one involved in the article's creation and writing believes that the impact on the gaming industry overshadows the disaster's more broad impacts. To characterize the edits as such is crossing a line, in my opinion. WP:VG members are simply doing what we do best: write about video game topics. It's not the WP:VG members' fault that other projects either don't have the workforce or article experience to write something similar. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • This is a cheap shot, and I apologise in advance, but: "It's shameful and an absolute travesty" that you chose to come here and berate your fellow Wikipedians and their article, rather than spend your time creating the article that you moan doesn't exist. I'll turn your comment around and ask you a question. Why haven't you created the economic impact article? There are plenty of articles and news stories to base it on. I initially thought that your comment was a troll, but no, you really do hold the biased opinion that Video Games - and by extension every member of WP:VG - are pathetic and shouldn't be part of Wikipedia.- X201 (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Members of WikiProject Video games worked together to write an article about the disaster's effect on the video game industry. It's what they do, write articles about video games and related topics. It's already been stated that the article's authors aren't familiar enough other topic areas to write articles about other effects of the disaster. But if someone more qualified wants to do so, by all means go ahead. Reach Out to the Truth 16:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is nothing immediately wrong with the article in regards to Wikipedia policy (that is, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, et cetera... and if there really are problems, they can easily be fixed), and I suspect that the opposition to the article is based on a bias forming from opinions and emotions in relation to the earthquake disaster incident. Appeal to emotion has no place on Wikipedia, in my opinion; an article is notable and verifiable, regardless of current events. Not to be arguing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks discusses a topic which, probably controversial, relates to a similar disaster which resulted in many deaths; however, like I said earlier, neither the death toll of 9-11 nor the earthquake should affect the existence of an article on the entertainment industry simply due to the opinion held by some people that such articles are "bad taste". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have already voted delete. There is a lot of talk about whether the article is in bad taste or not, or violates neutral point of view blah blah. Personally I feel this is the kind of article that is an embarrassment to the entire Wikipedia project, but this is completely irrelevant and I cannot judge the people who created it. The crucial thing is that Wikipedia is not news. The fact that something can be verified from multiple sources does not make it notable and enduring. Stock prices are just today's news. Same goes for video game release dates or whether a server is online or not. Businesses are donating to the relief effort. This is a normal thing for businesses to do in such circumstances. There is absolutely nothing that indicates that this is a subject of enduring notability. Nobody is saying the industry will not recover. The Nikkei index is already up 6% today. Nor is there anything that indicates that there is any negative effect specific to the videogame industry (for an example of specificity, the potential effect of nuclear fallout on agriculture, fishing etc.) Please think about how this article will look in the far future. WP:NOTNEWS 24.69.71.254 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came here so sure I was going to !vote delete, but this article does have substantial sourced coverage of the effect of the disaster on this specific industry, so there's definite notability. This is not the right place to discuss a possible expansion of the scope of the article to economic effect of maybe the entertainment industry in general; that should take place on talk pages. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one can doubt the diligence and good intentions of the author in putting this together, and no one can doubt the sourcing is impeccable, but these facts do not an encyclopedia article make. All this page contains is a series of moves by a disparate array of companies taken because of the earthquake. Nothing ties these actions together other than the common strain of being a reaction to the disaster, so the article contains no thesis, no main idea, and no point. We could probably make five hundred or a thousand or five thousand articles like this for every industry or company affected by any of a bewildering array of disasters over the past decade, but in general we have not done so. Heck, we could probably find enough newspaper stories to create cohesive articles on a dozen or more people who have no notability save for becoming casualties of this disaster, but we do not do that either. That is because this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not the job of wikipedia to keep track of daily stock price fluctuations or company donations; absent any special impact, there is no need. The video game industry was barely affected by the tragedy, and the responses by these companies are not in any way abnormal for giant corporations after an event of this magnitude. Absent these special circumstances, there is undue focus on something incredibly minor in this sweeping disaster. WP:UNDUE does not cover this situation as others have pointed out, but the sentiment that coverage is undue in this case is valid. Indrian (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a fair point, but at this point in its life, I think it would be fair to wait and see what happens. Even if the analysts state that they are not sure what will come of the situation, they give indication of possibilities that are far from unlikely. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Even though I share the sentiment that the individual facts are rather dispersed; undue (in any form, not just WP:UNDUE) is still not a WP:DEL criteria. GNG is -- "multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage". ✓ —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To quote WP:GNG: "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." All but a single referenced source in the nominated article lack critical evaluation, and the one that does is merely parroting the words of Michael Pachter. Thus, it actually fails GNG based on the WP:NOTNEWS guideline. It's not just multiple independent sources; you also have to prove that there's is some purpose to the article beyond collecting news. So far there is none, and I'm personally not inclined to "wait and see" something that most likely won't materialize. Dragonmaw (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Parroting entails intentionally repeating what a person said, not coincidentally saying the same thing. The fact that two different sources concur on an issue is demonstrative of the likelihood of it. And the supposed likelihood of information not materializing has no basis or foundation. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • One source. And the source, MSNBC, is simply one journalist parroting (yes, parroting. She is not adding her own comments as she made a news post, not an editorial column) two analysts who have not remarked on the quake in any other source and have differing viewpoints. The article besides the two sentences given to those analysts is simply a collection of news tidbits from around the internet, with the supposition that "it will affect the game industry for months to come" slapped in the intro paragraph. In other words, there is no concurrence. You are reaching, and apparently not even reading your sourced articles all the way through. Dragonmaw (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe there isn't enough evidence to prove that this article should be deleted. There are enough sources (and more to come eventually) to make this article relevant. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above.--Paaerduag (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allowing for any logical expansion to other entertainment industries. In time, I suspect more can be written on other industries drastically affected by the quake, but the video game industry moves quick and things were already in motion within hours of the quake/tsunami. I have suggested that there's no reason that if more could be added from those industries, that items from Japan's live action and anime/manga industries could be included as well.
    As a comment to those that are saying that the topic as a whole isn't notable because no single source covers it as a whole, that's not how notability works. Topics where there is partial coverage and where grouping makes sense should be grouped to a larger topic like this one; it's clear there's an effect on the video game industry, but its both negative and positive effects. Of course as noted there are sources that affirm the whole of this article as notable, but still, the point stands that without those, this article is still appropriate. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I re-read the 'Donations and assistance' section, and that has the potential to be a useful part of a wider article on donations and assistance efforts following the disaster, but I found it frustrating that it only covered a narrow area. I wanted to know what other donation and relief efforts were taking place. This is a problem if coverage becomes overly narrow like this. There is a reason why it is better to start broad and narrow the focus of a series of articles. If you don't do that, you miss out the bits inbetween and leave readers only half- (or less) informed about the wider context. Currently there is a background section on the disaster, but no contextual background material to set the efforts made by this industry in the wider context of other relief and assistance and fundraising efforts. And that is why the article gives such a bad impression. Imagine, if you will, a whole constellation of possible articles branching out from the main one, and then take a moment to realise what it looks like when a few of the main articles at the 'head' of the article tree have been started or done, and not a lot else except this twig a long way down a mostly undone branch of the tree. The same applies for Library damage resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. It has been six years 4.5 years since that article was written, and no-one in that time has fleshed out the surrounding articles that could provide context. The same is likely to happen here. Start with the parent articles first and only split off when each 'level' is in reasonable shape. Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern that there likely should be other articles, covering the economic impact and the relief/charitable efforts in light of the quake that are industry-neutral, or if one article won't cover it within WP:SIZE, based on a broader slice of the industry. No one has created these yet (though I see there is now a humanitarian response, but the level of detail this one goes into compared to the humanitarian response one is too deep w.r.t. to that), and because we're a volunteer project we shouldn't be expect that someone who's primarily interest is in video games to create the broader article themselves. The thing to consider is that it has been only a week. Other economic impacts are only starting to be felt, so how the larger picture will come together may make more sense in time, but that still gives no reason to talk about deleting something with broad, verifiable coverage now from an industry where the effects were reported immediately following the quake. I'd certainly be favor of merging or the like if those larger articles existed now, of course. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no general GNG satisfying topic here that is supported by any mainstream source. There's a lot of cherry picking, a lot of 2+2 makes 5, a lot of bombardment, and a general over-arching feeling for the average reader of it being a VG industry memorial or tribute piece, but certainly nothing that justifies Wikipedia giving out the rather offensive message to the world that of all the bad effects that this event has had, somehow the gaming industry has been so badly affected, and this has been so widely covered as a general topic (it really hasn't), that it deserves an article. SYN, NEWS, NPOV, RECENT (ok, an essay), take your pick, it breaks them all. There's a reason why editors are advised not to write about subjects they feel passionately about or are overly involved in in real life, and this article a pretty good example of why. While there's been a suggestion this has been a collaborative effort of many editors, in terms of the bulk of the content, I don't see it. MickMacNee (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Events are simply too new to have an accurate view of just what the overall effects are at this time. The "There have been delays of video games that are not related to earthquakes or disasters" line in the article give the impression of very heavy WP:SYN regarding the over all effect of the disaster at this time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 2nd choice is to tentatively merge to an article on the economic impact of the Japan earthquake, when that gets created. Otherwise, I think it's a reliably-sourced article on a topic which meets relevant notability standards. I mean, any article on an economic impact is going to consist of a list of stuff that Quantpole mentioned in his "delete" !vote. That being said, I think, when an article on the economic impact is eventually written (IMO it "when" and not "if"), effects on the video game industry can fit nicely into said article. –MuZemike 21:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to cover related industries.(But I see this as a possibly reasonable topic on its own, as the industry is specially important to Japan). Possibly better combined with closely related articles to avoid repeating common background, , but that can be discussed when there are others to combine it with, but it would be lost if upmerged into any existing article. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The invocation of UNDUE here amounts to no more than IDONTLIKE. Allow me to elucidate. In a set of articles, each about the effect of the earthquake on specific industries, would the gaming industry be out of place, and if so, why? Assuming that this article was written just before the last of that set of articles, would it be wrong that this one was written earlier, and if so, why? Anarchangel (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because there has been no significant coverage of an industry wide impact in reliable sources. All this article does basically is list a few stock price fluctuations, a few product delays/cancellations, and a few corporate donations and vaguely link them through the common thread of being earthquake related. To your questions, a challenge: find me significant coverage in reliable mainstream sources of an impact on the video game industry. Not coverage of individual responses, but coverage of the industry as a whole. If you cannot do it, then this article should not exist. Indrian (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then by the same logic we should delete the article on the relief efforts for the quake, because there are no single sources that cover the entirety of the effort in one go.
        Clearly, this is not how notability works. A topic constructed from multiple, closely-related subtopics that all have appropriate sourcing is acceptable as long as there's no inappropriate synthesis going on in constructing that topic. Here, saying that the impact on game releases, specific developers, specific online game aspects, and benefits and charitable efforts from game developers are all part of the "impact on video games" from the quake/tsunami is completely in line with assembly of a larger topic. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, there are many notable mainstream sources detailing the overall effort. Not every source mentions everything happening, but many sources have given attention to the concept of a cleanup and recovery effort. No mainstream reliable source has given voice to a concern about a general impact on the game industry. This is not the same thing as saying there is no effect; obviously there is. But this effect has not been significant enough to prompt coverage, which means it lacks notability from a wikipedia standpoint. Indrian (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • But even if there are sources that give a broad overview, we'd still be piece-parting other aspects into it. What is important to remember here is that this (either as VGs alone, or grouped with other industries) can clearly be identified as a spinout from the main topic of the quake/tsunami itself. In such spinouts, notability is partially inferred from the large topic. That is, if we didn't have to worry about size limits for articles, there would be a single article on the quake/tsunami, the impact on the nuclear power plants, the economic impact, including that in the VG industry, the humanity relief efforts, and so forth. It would likely be close to 0.5-1MB when all was said and done, if not larger. In a printed work, completely appropriate. But because we have to consider article size for accessibility and usefulness, breaking it apart along sensible, summarized lines makes sense. This by no mean changes the notability of the overall topic, but we do need to make sure that the spinouts are not too trivial or focused to lose that. In this case, I think most have identified that the only real problem here is that there are other industries affected by the quake/tsunami, but that no one has written articles to that effect, so there's no broader place to put this at the present time. A rough consensus agrees that once these other articles start to appear, fitting this into those would be completely appropriate; whether it covers all industries or a specific sector (like entertainment) is yet to be determined. This is just a realization that the spinout is appropriate and fulfills notability, but that its selection to the VG market may make it just a bit too focused, something that can be fixed once the other articles are created. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • There will never be other articles for other specific industries, because they are not notable as stand-alone topics, just like this one. If people disagree, why don't they just go and pick another industry and write the article, just to prove the point, instead of simply asserting that this is a topic, while failing to show any convincing evidence in actual sources. Despite what some people have said in here, that is not a task that requires any expert knowledge of the subject matter - if it's notable, any editor should be able to write about it. That's a founding principle of Wikipedia. This is absolutely not the type of spinout which inherits its notability from the parent - such a statement requires a belief that a small overview section would fit nicely in the main article. Well, right now, the parent article is literally the main page - and clearly devoting a section in there to the effects on the VG industry would look like an absurd NPOV violation. Even watered down to 'entertainment industry', it would still be the case. The only notable topic here with any hope of not sticking out like a sore thumb like this article does right now, would be to start with an 'Economic effects' sub-article, whose section in the main article is only getting large now. However, the reason we still only have a few paragraphs on the entire global finanial industry in there as a part of the section, yet we have this entire article on VG complete with over blown Background section, is not down to its own evident notability, or a lack of effort from editors in the Financial Industry project to go to work to show the world of that topic's evident notability, it's down to the complete over-inflation of the notability of this topic, by the very people who are least placed to objectively assess whether they have gone completely over-board here in their enthusiasm to write about what they like, rather than what they can demonstrate to be notable to ordinary readers. Such is this nature of this article, I doubt anyone except VG people have even been able to read it from start to finish - that's not a sign of a proper article at all, and not a notable topic at all. It's exactly the same as when you see the cliched individual Pokemon article, which is 5 times larger than the biography of a rennaissance painter, even though the painter's article is an FA. It kind of makes my point when you realise part of this article talks about rumours that the Pokemon creator was a casualty, and it gleefully updates us that he did infact tweet he was alive. Can people seriously imagine parallel articles about other industries made up of this sort of totally transient detail, as part of a notable topic? It's trivia like that which supports most of this article tbh. I have absolutely no interest in rennaissance painters, but I'm damn sure I could easily read an FA on one here and come away with the sense that I had just read an appropriately sized article on a demonstrably notable topic. I read this article and I come away with the impression that I have just read a memorial / fan piece to the VG industry. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, actually, summary style allows for parallel articles, subtopics of a larger article, describing separate aspects of the larger topic, if they cannot easily be combined into a larger article without breaking WP:SIZE. Again, those arguing keep seem very open to a merge to a larger article on broad or larger industry segment economic images. These are not written, and it is not the VG's project job or responsibility to write them, so until they are written, there's nowhere to merge information that other meets every other policy for WP (WP:V, NOR, and NPOV, specifically), certainly not the main article about the quake. Because WP is always a work in progress, this should be considered a placeholder article until those steps occur. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're simply flat wrong. This is not a summary spinout or a sub-topic in any way, shape or form. It's an article about the effect on the video games industry, period. That's something that absolutely has to show by itself that it is a notable topic. There's simply no inheritance allowance to be had here at all. This is not a spunout list of episodes, or an expansion of a particle physics article to cover a specific theory in more detail, or a sub-division of a longer 'history of' type article. It asserts a notable topic, but it cannot back it up. And to merge something, first you need to have a target that actually exists. Simply renaming this to 'economic effects' is not a merge, and it doesn't make it any less of a violation. All this talk of it's 'not my job' is pure guff. It's not anybody's job to write VG articles. The only job VG editors have is the same as everybody else - adhere to policy. And NPOV is a core policy, which absolutely, positively, does not sanction 'placeholders'. MickMacNee (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The place for placeholder articles like this, that are so far down the (as-yet-unfilled) chain of spin-out articles, is in some subpage draft location (be that a subpage of the article talk page, a subpage of a user's userspace, or a subpage of the video game wikiproject). I agree absolutely that spin-out topics are valid, but the parent articles should (usually) be written first. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I will note that I did caution that I think this article should have covered a wider range of industries (such as the general entertainment industry) before it was created, but we're at a situation where this has been created, it fails no other policy blatantly to call for deletion, and in time, it would be a completely approach section or stand-alone part of a tree of articles on the economic impact of the quake/tsunami. If those articles existed, no one would be calling for deletion, but we're here now, and it makes little sense to call for it here as long as the editors involved are completely aware of how the other articles develop and merge or match the progression there. There is no question those other articles can be written, but someone has to do that. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You're asserting as indisputable fact things that others have completely rejected in policy and fact. Instead of doing that, you need to first decide whether this is a notable topic in it's own right, and defend it on that basis, at which point the existence or absence of other articles becomes irrelevant, or choose the other path, and argue that while it might not be notable in its own right, it's a valid notability-inheriting SIZE fork and the issue is just that we need to wait for it to look less odd by creating not only a bunch of other sister articles on other specific industries, but also the parent(s) too (and then explain how that remotely fits with our basic model, which is top down with timely splitting, not bottom up with delayed infilling). MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was a title skeptical by the title but when I saw the reference and notability of the subject, I see no reason to delete. Satisfies WP:GNG. Japan is well-known for video games around the world. Much better for them than anime IMO.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Since there's been a lot of talk as to the existence (or lack thereof) of sufficient coverage, I've tagged the article for rescue, which will hopefully bring some improvements in sourcing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into a Economic impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. I agree with the nominator though on the UNDUE weight to video games. What about the impact on the stock market, manufacturing, fishing etc? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Like said before, this article was made by WikiProject Video Games people. We have no idea how to make an article on those fields. Just because other people haven't made those articles, doesn't mean there can't be an article on video games. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this was made by people who are only interested in video games and are thus probably biased about the relative importance of what interests them in the grand scheme of notability, is the problem. If you gave the collection of references that supposedly support the notability of this topic to a group of editors only interested in writing Wikipedia articles, they would most likely decide there is no topic to write about here at all, and if they did decided some of this info was worth documenting, they would not have begun doing so by creating this completely stand-alone NPOV content fork. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Mick. The article should be written from the perspective of the earthquake not the effect it had on the video games industry. The very fact that we have such an article with no apparent coverage of the economic effects of the disasters illustrates UNDUE WEIGHT and contrary to NPOV. A summary of the effects balanced with the other economic effects would be more encyclopedic. The video games industry is non important in relation to some of the other impacts it had which are not even mentioned sadly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand the concern, I'd like to point out that the WP:VG members have been the bad guys in more than one AfD, and suggest that you take a look at our deletion logs. While we are interested in video games, we are just as interested in the building an encyclopedia as the "group of editors only interested in writing Wikipedia articles" you mentioned. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    I think I'd be more convinced if you had examples of the VG members in question having produced good content on topics unrelated to their field of interest, just for the sake of building the pedia (and better, evidence of that content receiving peer-review praise for how well written and proportionate it is), rather than showing that they do clear out their area of junk from time to time (which is after all, still an example of editting in a field of interest). MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I could find. Out content has been cited in several articles at GameStudies.org.[2] The site is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal that has a Board of reviewers from academic institutes, a team of editors, and is listed on the Directory of Open Access Journals. The Virginia Heffernan of the New York Times likes our articles.[3] Rob Crossley of Edge magazine cited some of our compiled information in one of the publication's online articles.[4] The magazine later criticized us for our treatment of older games that lack sources Wikipedia deems reliable.[5] I.e. we delete, merge, and otherwise deal with video game topics that don't comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. The article appeared online and in issue 199.
    You're entitled to your opinion, so I won't go back and forth like this on something that is starting to become tangential. I believe that root of most AfDs is that the group of editors simply have a difference of opinion as to how the polices and guidelines should be applied. But some of the comments aimed at the editors involved in the article have bordered on insulting in my opinion. I'll leave this conversation with you at that. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    You misunderstood. I was referring to examples of VG editors showing they had the ability to write articles neutrally and in appropriate proportion about things that are not about video games, such as politics, history, geography, etc, etc, and especially examples that have been reviewed and praised by other Wikipedia editors who do the same. While it's an acheivement for any Wikipedian to be praised by outside sources, it's still a case of VG focussed people analysing VG focused Wikipedia content. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP is a volunteer project. You cannot force people to write on topics they have no interest in. Of course, it's good advice for editors to be broad , but we cannot enforce that like it seems you are asking. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I am talking about how the people asserting that this is not a violation can prove that they know how to write articles properly on all topics, and thus have not been unduly influenced by their love of the industry as they made the decision to write about this topic. People don't get a free pass here to write poorly and create NPOV violations just because they are doing it as a volunteer. MickMacNee (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend that your posts not be riddled with accusations and assumptions and a requirement to prove something I've seen no one on this Wiki obliged to prove. As an FYI, I've worked on Cat, Henry Fonda, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film), the Star Wars film articles, and others. My edits have nothing to do with bias and everything to do with an interest in the topic. The fact that I've frequently held many articles to strict criteria and was on the side of deletion in many cases. No one here is acting with impartiality or an agenda to create articles that do not pass notability. To show a previous work, Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man is a pretty blatant example of working on an article that ventures outside of the scope. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've never seen anyone at Wikipedia be asked to prove they can write according to policy when that's exactly they claim they can do in a discussion? Really? Nobody's 'made accusations' of you, but the simple observation of what your primary interest here is, is perfectly valid given the issue is an apparent lack of perspective in the final article, and a serious over-egging of the apparent notability. As for your other work in other fields, great, but it doesn't take any leap of judgement to decide whether or not to create an article on a well known film or actor - there is absolutely nothing in those acts to show that you have the ability to judge what is and is not a notable topic in a granulated manner as this requires. Partipation in VG deletions is irrelevant, as I've explained elsehwere. And the VG controversy article only again shows a propensity to elevate coverage out of proportion when writing about this field. Again, that's another article I can barely read all the way through, and I doubt anyone else not particularly interested in VG could either. I know what the general topic is, and even the lede is excessively detailed, but I'd be amazed if that was put though a Featured Article review and didn't come out the other side at least half the size, if not with a recommendation to merge. I'm dissappointed it was made a GA when it consists of just two sections, a 'Background' section which is wierdly, at 12 paragraphs and nearly 3 pages long seems to cover the whole topic, with a little Aftermath section tacked on to the end. In it's entirety, it reads pretty much as a news piece, with lots of quotes and 'he said she said' type narrative, and not much else. That's not a Good Article for me tbh, and it's certianly not proof as regards my original concern. MickMacNee (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're basic argument is "I have no interest in VGs, so I can't stand to read this article", which screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP is not paper - it has the capability of including topics that would be ignored in printed works. This means that you may not be interested in every article, but as long as there's demonstrated evidence that there is a broad section interested in it (eg through notability that has been shown through several secondary sources used here), we can keep it. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How is something that was apparently controversial enough to be brought to the attention of the then Prime Minister of Great Britain that was covered in the BBC, Manchester Evening News, The Times, and The Washington Times is out proportion? Would you be a dear and demonstrate what content is excessive and needn't be covered for this article, or perhaps how it qualifies as news? Though I could understand why you said that, since you also called Muslim Massacre a news article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This bit has tipped into a tangent that could distract others from the AfD aspect of the discussion. Points have been made and things have been said. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let us discuss this in a reasonable manner while assuming good faith. If points need to be restated, I think it would be best to do so at the bottom of the page. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, I'd mostly written my replies before seeing this. If people want to move them all, they can, but I'm just placing them here for now, I'm not willfully ignoring your point. MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (@New Age Retro Hippie) Your condescension aside, with that rather poor Muslim Massacre article, you've just given another example of VG people writing an article with a rather skewed perspective on what constitutes notability. Not that it had much even then, it has gone on to have zero lasting notability as the article shows quite well. If anyone attempted to show right now just how that 'controversy' passed the more long term aspects WP:EVENT, they would fail miserably. If I recall correctly, people couldn't even make up their minds at the time as to whether they were writing an article on a notable game or on a notable controversy infact. I think in the end an attempt was made to claim that having half a notable game and half a notable controversy, added up to a notably controversial game. It clearly didn't, and Wikipedia ended up with a rather weak article on both counts. As for the idea that we create an article on everything the PM gets questioned about, or the idea that presenting news sources shows how something isn't news - fine, if you believe that, then this whole debate has probably been pretty pointless from the get go. I leave others to read the article for themselves and give their opinion, if they care to. MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that in the future, you try not to sound condescending when you're accusing others of condescending. I did not "create" any perception of controversy. Far more than a so-called bias toward creating such topics, there exists a bias from you arguing that these topics are not notable. I am also curious why you did not address what content in the article was excessive - how can something be "cut in half" if you cannot even demonstrate what contents can be removed? And how does it not work as a long-term topic when the events of the topic span something around one year of time? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • BIAS has not one single thing to do with whether an editor takes a consistent position in Afds or not. It is relevant to whether an editor consistently creates the same type of article with the same type of flaws, based on their basic interests. And you can be curious all you want, it's pretty obvious from my description of it, what I would cut from that article, but as Guyinblack25 says below, this is not the place to be having that detailed discussion. Maybe I'll put it up for GAR. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (@Masem)Unsurprisingly, your attempt to tell me what my argument is, was wrong. I cannot read that article not because I do not like VG, I cannot read it because it's not written as an encyclopoedic article. It has no notable topic behind it, and it shows to the average reader - who can, whether they are interested in a topic or not, actually read about it and judge whether what they just read was appropriate or not. As said before, I'm not interested in rennaisance painters at all, but I can read a Wikipedia FA on one easily. Do you honestly think this could ever be turned into an FA in the same way? It hasn't got a hope in hell of that tbh. Trying to excuse the hosting of such material with NOTPAPER is simply not going to fly - NOTPAPER is not a licence to use and abuse Wikipedia to create a vast body of detailed coverage of the sort that would be of absolutely no interest to any general reader at all - that's not an NPOV issue, that's a simple issue of NOT full stop. Yes, we can have some material about the effects of the event on industry, but that has to be presented in proper proportion to the rest of the material out there in the real world about all the other effects. And sorry, but in the real world, outside of the places where VG by necessity is the central topic of interest, the effects on the VG industry is not of great concern, not in the way this article's mere existence suggests. Wikipedia is a general reference work first and foremost. NOTPAPER is how we justify simply writing about things like video games and notable people/firms/genres in it. It's not how we justify writing about the minutia of the industry in such excrutiating detail that the only readers of it would be people wholly vested in it. That's simply a non-starter in terms of basic policy, as it positions Wikipedia as an integral part of that industry's media. It isn't. Not in the slightest. And as has been requested repeatedly - if you think this topic does indeed have the supporting evidence of GNG type coverage of the topic, which is the Effect on the VG industry, not little snippets of news or VG vested opinion pieces or cherry picked lines of far larger works, then please provide the exact references so others can judge the who's, what's and why's of exactly how independent, in depth, and representative of the broad view that they really are. MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    MickMacNee- I suggest that you either take a step away from the discussion for a short bit or stick to solely citing policies and guidelines. Your comments are are really pushing Wikipedia:Civility. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    I've referred to policy throughout. You do not have to be littering every other word with blue links to be referring to what are some pretty basic concepts. If people want to know what specific paragraph or line I get my view from, they need only ask. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very good of you. However, I hope that the discussion is kept solely to policies and guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    You claim you cannot read the article because you cannot figure out the topic, yet the first sentence reads: The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake has had a significant impact on Japan's video game industry. The quality of the article, barring a few runs at copyediting, is no less than any other FA article and meets all other policy and guidelines for WP content. So the text of the article is pretty clear, and doesn't require intimate VG knowledge to appreciate. So your claim of being unable to read the article screams an immediate bias based on a loose understanding of the topic alone believing it to be inappropriate. You claim its not notable, but that's demonstrated by reading through the article, and understanding how all the sources come together to show this notable. (Notability does not require a topic to cover every single aspect of a topic "X", that's why we are a tertiary source to summarize sources into appropriate articles). Again, I do agree that this article stands out as there are no other present "Effect of the quake/tsunami articles on X industry" articles, but they can be generated in time, and when they are, we can talk about normalization. But there's no policy or guideline that requires us to remove this article until those exist. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're attempts at telling me what I think are not only still completely wrong, they are now starting to be pretty insulting to boot. You've pretty much just called me a thick idiot t.b.h. with all that stuff about the first line and 'not being able to read the article' or understand the topic. I am not unable to read this article or appreciate the topic out of any basic lack of reading skills, and if you want to assert it's out of some hatred for the topic, go ahead, nothing I've said supports such a blatant attempt to play the man not the ball. If you really don't understand my meaning when I talk about the 'general reader' and how that relates to the basic mission and NOT/NOTPAPER, then just ignore it. At no point did I say that an intimate knowledge of the topic was required to be able to read the article, that's simply your attempt to interpret my point, and I guarantee it's utterly wrong. As for the point about notability, you've got that wrong as well. As a tertiary source, the correct statement is: we are not here to cover every aspect of topic X, we are here to summarize what sources say about topic X. So if anything, that supports deletion, not retention, as if this article attempts to do anything, it's to cover every detail of the 'effect of the event on the VG industry' in the way a primary source would, not a tertiary source. Simply put, no, it's not sufficient to claim that because we have a collection of bits and pieces, it adds up to a whole. Compare that to something truly notable - people do not look at the World War II article and say, well, there's lots of sources about bits and pieces of this conflict, so I guess they all come together to show notability. No, not at all. The notability comes form sources treating it as a single topic worthy of significant coverage. That is what is meant by 'topic' in the GNG. Your claim that this is just a copyedit or two away from being an FA really is incredible tbh. Go for it if you think that, prove me wrong. If you can get this onto the Main Page as a topic I promise I'll never offer my ignorant and biased opinion about a VG article ever again. I'll stick to the easy stuff like writing about the BNP. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, notability is based on bringing together multiple sources to show the topic is notable, that's why the GNG is based on "multiple independent secondary sources". Sources may cover the entire breadth of a topic, such as an biography, but more often, sources only cover parts of a topic and we have to group and organize them appropriate (take the case of most living persons without any biography, we have to build that up from several sources). Notability does not come from one source, it comes from showing the topic covered in a plethora of sources such as outlined here. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're so wrong it's unbelievable. There are plenty of people, Jimbo included, who would put such a biography up for deletion on basic BLP grounds, never mind notability grounds, if indeed the article author, in order to be able to write about the person at all, had had to go digging around putting partial bits and pieces found in sources together to present a 'whole' in Wikipedia. If they could not even find a single source which covered directly and in detail the main reason why the person was notable (which is the topic in a BLP) let alone more than one, to support their basic notability, then they are not summarising real world coverage in the slightest, they are actively engaging in original research, which is something entirely different. This is GNG 101, this is what a 'topic' is as defined as, this is what must be covered directly and in detail by a source, and more than one source at that. You have confused the correct idea that the topic "need not be the main topic of the source material" (i.e., you can have a book which devotes a significant chapter to the effect on the games industry but be about the quake as a whole, to support the idea it was a topic in of itself) with the false idea that there doesn't have to be any significant coverage of it as a topic as a whole at all in any sources, and as long as the sources all talk about some little part of the whole, then you can put them all together to somehow make the whole - that's you putting them together to support a conclusion not supported by the sources, a.k.a, original research. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So instead, then lets break this article into the clearly notable sections by your definition and have "Video games cancelled due to the quake/tsunami", "Video game delays due to the quake/tsunami", etc. because there are sources that clearly cover these aspects by themselves....Except we'd be left with very stubby articles repeating the same information about the quake and tsunami with only a few blips about the actual topic. Instead, we use the common sense approach that talking about all the effects on the VG industry of the quake/tsunami is not novel synthesis and thus to create a stronger article. The same reason I would even propose further to merge up to a larger broad industry effect article once the others have been created and we can judge how to normalize everything. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, what? GNG is a presumption for inclusoin, it's not a free pass over more basic policies, or even common sense. I think NOT#NEWS and NOT#INFO would adequately cover any attempt to write articles on the 'topics' of Video games cancelled due to the 2011 Tōhoku quake/tsunami or Video game delays due to the 2011 Tōhoku quake/tsunami. When looked at in those terms, it only becomes more obvious that to accept this as an article here, you pretty much have to suspend all notions that Wikipedia is first and foremost a general reference work which also has some content about video games. Such articles would never fit here by any measure, and bundling them together without sources supporting the main topic shouldn't really hide the fact that this is what this article is currently. And if we believed for a second idea that we are all just waiting for the other forks to catch up, then in the fullness of time we could also have List of IT projects cancelled by the 2011 Tōhoku quake/tsunami, List of car models delayed by the 2011 Tōhoku quake/tsunami, List of buildings projects cancelled due to the 2011 Tōhoku quake/tsunami. It's ridiculous. I cannot see anybody in the fullness of time publishing books, or even chapters of books, on those topics of supposed historical notability. MickMacNee (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course we wouldn't have all those articles because alone they would be stubby and approach NOTNEWS, but common sense says there's a larger notability of the economic impact including within specific subareas that all those articles would feed into. And of course, we're only a week + change from the actual event; the economic impact particularly if the reactors continue to leak more will last for years, so such an article or set of articles will continue to grow. This is why notability is a guideline as it requires common sense in certain applications such as this where clearly an encyclopedic article can be written even if the exact letter of the "law" (what there is of that on WP) is not followed. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion of what is and is not 'common sense' is one of the most abused ideas on the pedia. It's amazing how many times perfectly ordinary editing decisions are turned into exceptions to the rule in the name of common sense. It's a wonder anyone bothered to even write the GNG as nobody ever seems to accept that it is in itself the expression of some very basic common sense views about the fundemental mission of Wikipedia. Yes it's been a week, and this article is already bigger than the whole Economic Effects of 9/11 article has achieved in 10 years. And there isn't even an Economic Effects article for the quake yet. That's where this particular brand of common sense gets the pedia. MickMacNee (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "common sense" does not cause a notable article - such as the general economic effect as the tsunami - to not exist. As has been repeated many times, the fact that those articles do not exist is because no one has made them, not because anyone who worked on the existing one believes that this is the most important economic impact of the tsunami. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to add that MickMacNee's comment about "bits and pieces" is based on a believe that sources from the gaming industry should be discounted towards the establishing notability, which also is not how notability works. However, if I've misinterpreted your previous comments, I apologize. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Not necessarily. But as plenty have people have already said, it's hardly convincing in terms of asserting real world significance to state 'look how many gaming focused sources have covered the effect of this event on the gaming industry'. While you can use VG industry sources to support content all you want, at some point you have to realise what 'mainstream' and 'independent' really mean in this context, rather than a macro example where all someone is trying to do is show a particular game has been noticed by the 'mainstream' VG industry. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem- MickMacNee's views are quite apparent from reading the thread. I'm confident that an impartial observer (and hopefully the closing admin) can see the relevant issues. The important points have been made. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • FYI: I just expanded the "Effects on business" section some. I hope that those that have already commented will read the article again for good measure. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge to Economic impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. The video games industry falls under the economy, and since the Economic impact section in the parent article is growing substantially, it ought to be split off into a sub-article. Goodvac (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A review of the sources listed in the article has convinced me that this article passes WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthegogo (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Sources do give coverage to the video game industry being affected by the earthquake. Dream Focus 04:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Please present them, so that the closer might be able to see what is being held up here as an example of this topic being treated as a topic, and by who, and why. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that this article demonstrates that the subject matter is a discriminate and notable phenomenon, as well as utilizes multiple, independent, reliable sources. Artichoker[talk] 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BigDom 22:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janus Thinking[edit]

Janus Thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that purports to be about a new philosophy (which wouldn't merit an article here, per WP:NOR), but which is actually attempting to promote the company "Janus Thinking Ltd." and the website janusthinking.com, which apparently exist to propagate this new philosophy. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable; not a new philosophy. Shanata (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't see the notability. Deb (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good-faith search in the most relevant sources (books, scholar) fails to identify coverage giving rise to conclusion of notability. Bongomatic 04:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability concerns, borderline advertising/promotional problems. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted g7, author blanked page. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linas Jablonskis[edit]

Linas Jablonskis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google seems to verify that the person exists--that's all. The article on the Lithuanian wiki has one source, and even if I could verify that I don't think it would be enough. Try the various Google searches: nothing, except for this, which is nothing. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Db-authored, close AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BigDom 22:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kuber[edit]

Peter Kuber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Six years after the article was created, I call bullshit. Unverified BLP with nothing to show for by an IP editor who was brought up for vandalism in an RfC (for historical purposes, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/67.86.174.158). Delete quickly please. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax, please mark any more like this for speedy deletion. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy Park (Television)[edit]

Normandy Park (Television) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page created by a disruptive pseudonewbie who removed a PROD. Fails WP:GNG and every other policy about notability and reliability. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as a hoax - also cross-posted tagging the article. I can find no references to this show in regards to Larry Wilmore or Danny Bhoy on any reputable site. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G3 Hoax As I posted on the talk page:
This Article appears to be a hoax, I have taken the following steps to attempt to verify the show existed:
Googled the Normandy Park, Normandy Park Sitcom and Normandy Park Sitcom TNN
Checked the IMDB entries of Danny Bhoy and Larry Willmore
Checked every person linked from the article
There are no references to the existence of the show. Monty845 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Fort[edit]

Ricardo Fort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a non-notable subject.- camr nag 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This person is a famous actor in Argentina. He's done many tv shows and deserves a wiki page. I have put legit information and resources.
He is mentioned in the following wikipedia pages:
This entrepreneur and actor is a very important person in the Argentine Television History.
Also on the "Ricardo Fort" page there are plenty of actual and legit sources.--Scoobynaiter123 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is a notable person in the Argetine tv business.. we CAN NOT deny this !! He is always on tv and has been for the past 3 years...If you are argentine wikipidia editor/user than you should know this...If any doubts google him but this man deserves a page for his contributions on tv and comunity and it's NOT for a promotional article! I do not think he is an important person on the argentine tv history, I KNOW he is. --Scoobynaiter123 (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • please, keep your argument in order. you're just repeating yourself. yes, i am from argentina. that's why i'm pointing out how ridiculous those phrases sound. we can turn this into an "i know he's important"-"i know he's not". very useful. do you actually live in argentina? i haven't seen him in a while...--camr nag 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I live in Argentina... Please quit acting like he's not famous cause he is.--Scoobynaiter123 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • if you have no new insight, please refrain from personal attacks. mine is not a pose. again, if you have no new insights, then leave it to people that support your case with reasons.--camr nag 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be an Argentine reality TV sensation, Donald Trump-meets-the-Kardashians or something... Lots of glossy, fluffy sources around, like THIS for example. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, but that's a paparazzi site. this clearly does not meet notability guidelines [6]--camr nag 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's typically a low, low bar for notability of television personalities at Wikipedia... Carrite (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but he doesn't even meet that "low bar"...--camr nag 14:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it has been deleted in the sp wikipedia 5 times for being a promotional article. in regards to what Scoobynaiterpaul123 argues: he's not an actor. he's a rich guy. "many tv shows" is subjective, and he's done none, but only appeared in a few. being mentioned in a wp article does not imply notability. all your arguments seem to be based on what you think is a "very important person (in the argentine television history)". you might as well dub him a pivotal personage in argentine history and we'll have to take your word on it. and the sources? 2 blogs, his own website, one wiki and 2 paparazzi sites are NOT legit sources.--camr nag 15:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are the people who propose deletions supposed to be casting votes? Carrite (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
an afd's not a poll, should know that by now...--camr nag 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is NOT the Spanish Wikipedia. We do not act based upon what editors on non-English Wikipedia's might or might not do. What we DO require here is verification of information and the subject meeting WP:GNG. Yes, the article requires major cleanup and better sourcing. Yes, the article can benefit from expansion. But both are addressable issues which do not require deletion of a notable topic before being done. So he's a rich guy who panders to his own needs and whims? Big deal. So is Donald Trump and I see no demand to delete the Trump article. Like with any topic, it's through the coverage in multiple reliable sources that someone may be determined to meet WP:BIO, and this fellow has plenty... even if much is in Argentinianan Spanish language sources.[7] Notability to Argentina is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    i didn't say you should follow what the sp wikipedia did, i said that because of the subjectivity it implies to say "he's a very important man in argentina". it was deleted b/c the consensus reached there was that he was not.
    you base your argument in what this article could be, but never say how. paparazzi sites and mags would claim any small incident and character is important and/or famous, because that's what they make their livelihood on. the article requires better sourcing, but there is none. trump founded a company, among other things. this guy did no such thing, nor anything worth mentioning. in any case, since his granfather's the founder of the company, that would be notability by proxy.--camr nag 16:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your concern with current sourcing or content is addressable through regular editing. That is the how. That an earlier editor pointed to es.Wikipedia as a rationale for keep is perhaps the reason you pointed to it for delete, as is the reason I stated that we are not them. Notability is not dependent on how a rich person acquired their wealth, it is dependent rather in coverage in multiple reliable sources over a many years period. Your feeling the fellow never did anything worth mentioning, and that there are no sources, seems to run contrary to the over 1200 g-news results found in a cursory search,[8] and while I have not begun to go through them one by one, I have a very difficult time accepting your blanket call that all 1200 articles are unsuitable for the expansion and sourcing of the article. And since all news reporters earn their living through their reporting of the news, that is not how en.Wikipedia determines a news source to be unreliable. After my cursory search, yes, I do base my keep on WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:POTENTIAL showing the article as improvable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, have you gone through them one by one? have you already realized it's nothing but paparazzi gibberish? 100s "ricardo fort fought with virginia gallardo" and 300s "ricardo fort says he's not gay" don't seem to fit for this article. i'm not just "going down swingin". i ask you, please, to actually try and make an article from those sources. i guarantee you, you'll find it absolutely impossible.--camr nag 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just realized that while the nominator tagged the article for a speedy on March 7,[9] and while the speedy was decline on March 8,[10] resulting in this AFD being filed, I see that the article itself was never tagged with the AFD template.[11] I will rectify this error and make the proper notifications. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) on behalf of Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Mandsford 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilda Reka[edit]

Ilda Reka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a beauty pageant title holder for which I am unable to find any sources to satisfy verifiability. The article states that she represented Albania at Miss Universe 1994. Our own wikipedia article doe not list any entrant from Albania. I've used pageantopolis for looking up other beauty contestants, and it turns out the Wikipedia article is sourced from there. It, of course, doesn't list any entrant from Albania. Searches on google news, and books turn up no results, and web search results fail to find any reliable sources. There is also a claim for 3rd runner up at Miss Globe in 2001. This may not be the same competition as I gather that there are, or have been mutliple contests that have used this name. However, her name doesn't appear as an entrant in that list, and I can find not other sourcing for any Miss Globe that has her as an entrant. The year of competition for Miss Europe is unspecified but I found this which shows a Lida (not Ilda) Reka competing for Albania. I conducted additional searches using "Lida Reka" but could find no sources using that name either. She would meet notability as a pageant title holder if there were sources to verify it, but there are none. Whpq (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources to verify the contents of the article. J04n(talk page) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's an interview [12] in Albanian with a current Miss Albania who mentions an Ilda Reka as one of her favorite past Miss World. At the bottom of this page there's an article whose title translates "Reka recovered, with more light than top-models", By Violeta Murad - Top Ilda Reka model comes in Albania for another show. Again in the activity of Grabockes..., but I have no idea how to actually get to the rest of the article content without dropping $25. The first doesn't quite seem reliable enough, the second doesn't appear to source the claim that would provide notability. Humph. --joe deckertalk to me 06:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think this is the first beauty pageant title holder article I have come across that I am unable to dig up any sources for. I just checked another beauy pageant fan site and found this feature article abut the 1994 Miss Universe pageant. It also shows no entry from Albania. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BigDom 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherdog.com pound for pound[edit]

Sherdog.com pound for pound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for subjective rankings made by a single niche website. MMA PFP rankings are highly contentious, and meaningless from a practical point of view since these fighters rarely fight each other. There is no authoritative PFP list, so there should not be a page for any of them. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom, we absolutely should not have an article for one specific site's pound for pound list. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Seems like indiscriminate information to me, and I don't think we can consider one website the main authority in this regard without sourcing indicating that. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's true that pound for pound rankings are meaningless and completely subjective. However, the real reason this article should be deleted is that this article gives no reason why its subject is notable and has no independent sources that might show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BigDom 22:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oligarchologist[edit]

Oligarchologist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable field of study. Phearson (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Needs to be improved as well. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. There appears to be exactly one Google Book hit mentioning the word "oligarchology". Surprisingly, only 7 Google hits. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neololgism. I'm somewhat surprised it wasn't a word coined in a bar last evening, actually... Carrite (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is most definitely notable. There are numerous authors and broadcasters that can be considered as oligarchologists (Alex Jones, David Icke, Alan Watt etc.) The article needs to be expanded. Deleting the article will not further this goal and will diminish wikipedia as a result. Flaviusvulso (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then please supply some reliable sources that verify that it meets the notability criterion. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRL Field Goal[edit]

NRL Field Goal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Racing[edit]

Wicked Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a plausible search term. See "Purposes of redirects" at WP:REDIRECT. "Quantity of wikilinks" is not one of them. Marasmusine (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Rally 2[edit]

Mobile Rally 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Rally[edit]

Mobile Rally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, That's pointless, as the only articles that link to this one are Wicked Witch Software and another game from the same developer (also up for AfD). WuhWuzDat 14:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Assault[edit]

Tank Assault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRL SuperPass[edit]

NRL SuperPass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRL Arcade[edit]

NRL Arcade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Handball[edit]

AFL Handball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFL GoalKick[edit]

AFL GoalKick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florentin Smarandache[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Florentin Smarandache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not entirely clear whether Smarandache passes the WP:PROF criteria (the first AfD was somewhat divided); he may because of the number of things (such as functions and numbers) named after him. But the main point is that there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources (independent of the subject) that talk about Smarandache himself. Without these sources, this article can't satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, so it should probably be deleted. Mlm42 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - The subject of this article is a very prolific author. A search shows over 10 pages of results where the subject is the author. I did not find any significant other sources mentioning him. If you use another author mentioned on WP as a guide there are some authors of less know work left alone. It in itself is not a guide but there is a fine line here with regard to notability and this candidate for deletion. Golgofrinchian (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, those google results are not about the author, but rather publications by the author. The problem is that there doesn't appear to be any independent sources where Smarandache is the subject. Mlm42 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep per above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchall (talk • contribs) [reply]

  • Weak Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think he's known less as an impactful mathematician than as a relentless self-promoter, but I think there's enough about him to have an article. See for instance [13] [14], a 55-page booklet about his work (though perhaps its publisher is not independent of the subject). And I don't really buy the nominator's arguments, anyway: researchers are known for their research, just as in most cases politicians are known for their political office and musicians are known for their music. It should be perfectly valid to have an article that summarizes the researcher's research contributions while saying little about their private life. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think point 5 in WP:SELFPUB specifically addresses this kind of case. My understanding is that we need sources that are independent of the subject. Mlm42 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. The citation counts in Google scholar are in the range for a pass of WP:PROF#C1, there is nontrivial coverage of him in sources, and his name is widely known. Because of all that, I'd like us to have a properly neutral article about him, one that accurately describes what mainstream mathematics thinks of his work. However, it seems particularly difficult to find sources that are actually independent of the subject and that say something nontrivial about him. Given his self-promotion I don't want to rely on non-independent sources for anything in the article — that would probably violate WP:NPOV — but without them what is there to say about him? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article certainly has a colorful editing history, and some of the comments at the first AfD are laugh-out-loud funny, but I don't see that anything has changed since then to make me think that "keep" result wasn't the right one. He certainly seems to be notable based on the evidence. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, we do generally allow some autobiographical information to be included in biographical articles, and in this case it is appropriately identified as such in the text. For what it's worth (which may be very little in this case), Google News does turn up a few sources that appear to be "about" him[15]: they're in Romanian, which I don't know, and they make even less sense to me after being run through the Google translator into English.[16][17][18] That seems to be par for the course with respect to this subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per David Eppstein. Smarandache hasn't done much of importance, but he is well-known. On the other hand, I concur with the nominator on all the factual points mentioned in this AfD. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agricola. Additionally, I have concerns about our ability to write an article that is verifiable and independent of the subject. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. What do the numbers say? GS cites are 498, 149, 74, 72, 61 .... with h index of 20. Love it or hate it a clear keep on WP:Prof#C1. Lots of laughs in the article too! (But see below) Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. In this case, the h-index is a poor indicator of actual influence. For instance, the Field's medalist Elon Lindenstrauss only has an h-index of about 17, but is orders of magnitude more influential as a mathematician. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agricola's comment below completely undercuts the reliability of GS cites for determining notability per WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree completely with David Eppstein's arguments. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub until sources can be found. While it seems likely that we should have an article about this guy, the article will look nothing like the one we currently have. It should be based on sources that are independent of the subject. The current article runs afoul of a number of policies, at the very least: (1) the WP:NPOV policy by giving undue weight to the subject's fringe mathematical theories, (2) the WP:SPS portion of the verifiability policy, by including self-published self-promoting sources, (3) WP:OR, for instance by linking to the subject's personal site, the article concludes that he is a playwright. I suggest stubbing the article, and rewriting it from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading both the article and all of the above, I assumed I would probably side with the "keep" camp, but in looking a little deeper, I've found two problematic pieces of information. First, the gravity and impact of his work claimed (goes to WP:PROF #1) in the article is contravened by WoS – which is squarely where we would expect such impact to show up for someone working in mathematics and physics. For example, the article speaks of the "Smarandache constant", "Generalized Smarandache Palindrome", the "Smarandache hypothesis" in theoretical physics, etc. WoS shows only 3 papers, having citations of 1, 0, 0: h-index = 1. That figure is quite literally "next to nothing" in terms of impact. It is true that there are quite a few citations in GS, although a large fraction seem to be self-citations and citations from other unpublished works. (I went back to first AfD, which also points this out.) I'll admit that one might argue impact on the GS findings, but my feeling is that self and unpublished cites are not what is conventionally meant by that term. Smarandache seems to be somewhat on the fringe and he may have some fame therefrom, but I don't not believe that translates to notability per se...which brings us to my second objection. He is the editor of journals, which would normally satisfy WP:PROF #8, but these journals are neither major, nor well-established, as the policy requires. The International Journal of Applied Mathematics & Statistics is a relatively new journal and its web page indicates it is not indexed by WoS. Progress in Physics is an "alternative" journal that seems to publish unrefereed, often "crank" articles, see e.g. this. (Incidentally, the Progress in Physics article has no real sources, dead links, etc. – perhaps should be considered for deletion itself.) I think the conclusion that I come away with is that David's observation that Mr Smarandache is a relentless self-promoter is being kind. There's plenty of observation above and in the first AfD regarding his promotional prowess, in fact, this article was probably started by him (Geolocate shows the anon creator account to be from his institution.) I would like to respectfully propose that he is so good at this that even some of the usually and rightfully skeptics among us have been snowed. In the end, the only legit argument for "keep" is that he is, in some sense, famous, but WP:FAME suggests we should be dubious. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Addendum. This page gives some specific examples of the trivialities that Smarandache promotes as his mathematical research – this is entirely consistent with absence of indicated impact in WoS. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Agricola, excellent research, cant add anything to that other than some concerns about refspam in the article. Seems to be going for quantiy over quality RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some contributors to this debate do not appear have a good understanding of the concept of notability. Notability means being noted, and if somebody has been noted they are therefore notable by Wikipedia standards. These academic AfD pages do not have the function of an academic promotions committee set up to determine who has done "good" or "bad" mathematics and reward people accordingly. It may be that the subject of the article is a master of self-promotion but, if so, he is a successful one. With a GS h index of 20 he has around 1000 citations to his work and not all of those are by himself. By the standards applied on these pages he passes WP:Prof#C1 easily and his other accomplishments contribute to W:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
However, a numerical preponderance of Google scholar hits citations from questionable sources does not translate into "significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline" (from WP:PROF: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.") As already observed, most of the citations to his work are from unpublished or otherwise questionable sources. His WoS h-index gives a much more accurate assessment of this individual's impact in mathematics: effectively nil. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. I was referring to citations not hits. Search on GS for "author:Florentin Smarandache" and you will find 864 hits. This extraordinarily large number refers to publications authored by Smarandache. In terms of establishing notability these hits are almost worthless. However, under each hit you will find "Cited by xx" where xx is the number of cites. The first hit shows 499 cites. Click on the "Cited by" and you will find who did the citing. Most of these cites are not self-cites by Smarandache. These are the data that are used to obtain the citation h index for GS. Looking back at past decisions on these academic AfD pages I find that to clearly satisfy WP:Prof#C1 500-1000 citations in the scientific literature have usually been needed with an h index of greater than 15. Those with an h index of less than 10 rarely pass. There is no formal policy on this; it is just the way that decisions of editors have evolved over the past few years. Standards of notability for academics and scholars in the English Wikipedia are much higher than for some other subjects; garage bands, musicians or athletes sometime get by with only a handful of references. The acceptable number of citations also varies by subject. It is not the job of editors of these pages to determine whether a subject's views are correct or incorrect, good or evil. We only determine if they are notable from having been noted, and in this case it is clear that the subject has been. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you were inattentive in reading my post. Contrary to your overall tone WP:PROF#C1 is not some facile numerical criterion on notability, hence my reason for quoting the policy. Instead, the policy specifically demands that the sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. How many of these citations indexed by Google scholar are in reliable sources independent of the subject? Combing through the results (admittedly I have not looked at several hundred citations), most seem to be from vanity publishers and otherwise very questionable sources that we would not consider to be reliable sources. These are not "citations in the scientific literature"; these are self-published citations in vanity presses. But if it were true that the numbers go so far as to establish notability as you seem to feel, then his WoS index should also be high. But it is almost nonexistent. Since google scholar indexes many publications we would not consider reliable, in this case we should trust the assessment of WoS, particularly given the subject's penchant for voluminous self-publication. So I motion that the GS cites are irrelevant, unless a substantial number of these can be demonstrated to be reliable indicators of notability. I believe the guideline already makes clear that h-index should only be used cautiously (in this case, there is good reason for being even more cautious than usual), and it already discusses the unreliability of Google scholar's h-index (which in this case is especially unreliable). Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the accusations of sockpuppetry in the PlanetMath piece, and the ease of faking up high citation counts in Google scholar, I'm not sure that we should take the high numbers in Google scholar completely at face value without other evidence. In addition, this week Google scholar seems to have made a change that causes outgoing citations as well as incoming citations to be counted, making their counts useless for assessing notability. Looking at the actual citations listed by Google for his highest cited work, many are in the "Smarandache notions journal" (i.e. not independent of the subject); of the first ten citations it lists, the only one I really trust is Sloane's, and that one mentions the subject only trivially. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Eppstein for revealing how readily Google Scholar can be subverted. A closer look at the Smarandache citations does indeed raise questions about their validity. I still support a keep in view of his heroic efforts at self-promotion, that needs to be put in the article. If we have an article about William McGonagal we can have an article about Smarandache. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
... but what is the Telesio Galilei Academy of Science Award? According to this page, he won it in 2010. Phiwum (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't really add anything to what David Eppstein and Agricola44 said, except that you should read [19] (PlanetMath), which probably qualifies as a BLP attack page, but WP:IAR. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that PlanetMath hit piece is relevant here, wouldn't it provide further evidence of his notability, even if only as a "doofus"? --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to base an article on that? Tijfo098 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably. I won't open the can of worms about Smarandache's PROF notability, but just looking over the Romanian echoes of his contribution to literature, I get the sense that the man is very self-promotional, but much neglected by mainstream criticism. He only gets a handful of small-scale reviews in mainstream literary journals. For instance this article, in the Writers' Union of Romania România Literară, briefly mentions him as "Autorul (matematician român stabilit în SUA) pretinde că a creat un nou curent literar, "paradoxismul", pe care îl menţionează entuziast, ca o mare realizare, în cv-ul său. Are şi numeroşi adepţi devotaţi, situaţi, ca şi el, în afara adevăratei literaturi. Poeziile din recentul volum sunt (ca şi cele din volumele anterioare) rezultatul unei gimnastici lingvistice hazardate. Lipsit de bun-gust, Florentin Smarandache vrea să fie original, dar nu reuşeşte decât să fie strident, vrea să epateze, dar nu reuşeşte decât să provoace cititorului (cultivat) un zâmbet ironic [...]. Singurele momente în care atinge poezia sunt acelea în care îl imită pe Nichita Stănescu [...]" That is: "The author (a Romanian mathematician living in the USA) claims to have created a new literary current, 'paradoxism', which he mentions with enthusiasm, like some sort of great achievement, in his CV. He also has many devoted followers, located, just as he is, outside the realm of real literature. The poems of his recent volume are (like those of his earlier volumes) the result of risky verbal gymnastics. Lacking in good taste, Florentin Smarandache wants to be original, but only manages to be glaring, wants to shock, but only manages to raise an ironic smile from the (cultivated) reader [...]. The only moments where he touches on real poetry are those where he imitates Nichita Stănescu [...]" A more in-depth analysis in Observator Cultural, article by Paul Cernat, also reserves some brutal criticism for Smarandache and his pals: "graphomaniacs", "nonsense", "fauna" etc. are some of the epithets Cernat uses in reference to these guys. Cernat also briefly reviews Smarandache's memoirs, noting that the man has "a modest literary talent" and "an overinflated ego", and that, although he has good "Oltenian humor", his pages are "sordid". And so on. Now, I'm tired of searching for more - this is the type of reviews FS gets, and will probably get until the day he gives up on writing. Rest assured, there's not much more than that around. Maybe these validate keeping the article, but it would have to lean on the negative side, since there's nobody that thinks much of FS other than himself & comp. WP:BLP in mind, it's probably better to invite the article out. Dahn (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in-depth research. FWIW, graphomania. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of Dahn's information. Notable is not equal to meritorious. A low quality writer whose work gets 3rd party published RS reviews is notable, and the reviews given above are sufficient for notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily object to that interpretation (though note that what I quoted is virtually all of the exposure that FS got in such sources!). The problem here is that, if built from the actual mentions that are quotable, such as the ones I quoted above, the article would become very negative to FS, overwhelmingly so. Three reasons why that is a problem: 1) WP:BLP concerns; 2) keeping the article on the basis of negative reviews would automatically imply the exposure of FS' own vanity press - for "reciprocity", and simply because it's okay to quote self-published sources "in articles about themselves"; 3) I'd wager we'd be facing a continuous edit war with various single-purpose accounts trying to remove the "negative" information, and in the process reducing this article to what it already is. All that because a couple of mentions in the non-vanity press? I for one don't think that's what wikipedia should do/what wikipedia was meant for. Dahn (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Arcade[edit]

AFL Arcade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool 22:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Beautiful Soul. BigDom 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Life (Jesse McCartney song)[edit]

Good Life (Jesse McCartney song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable song. Fixer23 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom by completing Step III (add to log). Please close seven days after 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and no Delete !votes - per WP:KEEP#1 (non-admin closure) Enfcer (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wishna[edit]

Jack Wishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as hopeless public relations/propaganda. Numerous updates by user purporting to be subject. [email protected] (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- nomination withdrawn (see below). [email protected] (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its current form is poor but not hopeless. A Google News search confirms that Wishna is notable. Every claim in the article needs to be referenced to a reliable source or removed, but that seems possible. Cullen328 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator was notified of this AFD. If he/she wishes to fix it, fine. That is his or her responsibility. I really cannot do so at this time, my hands are full. If no one wants make the positive edits needed to wikify the article then it should go. Have you seen all the banners posted (not by me, btw)? [email protected] (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already started to gather reliable sources in my sandbox and I will fix up the article. AfD is for articles that shouldn't exist, not for articles that need work. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but an article that is almost wholly self-promotional, with edits apparently made by the subject is a horse of a different color, IMO. Anyway, good luck with your enterprise. [email protected] (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've completely rewritten the article, eliminated the puffery, and cited all claims to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 has done a masterful job. The article appears to be in accord with WP:BLP. I withdraw the nomination. [email protected] (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject meets Wikipedia notability standards, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boolos[edit]

Boolos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. The references don't seem to refer here. No inward links. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FPX (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
FPX (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion as (1) tagged for improved references since 2008 and none supplied. (2) Largely the product of a single editor who has not edited any other article [20]. (3) Appears to be solely a promotional piece. (4) Doesn't meet notability criteria WP:ORG as there is only trivial or incidental coverage of the company by secondary sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep The company's founder was named one of the "The 10 Most Influential People in CRM" and there is a reference to an article supporting that. The company was founded in 1983 - no other configure-price-quote company existed before that time. The article is a story of how two men created a software company, with little investment, that has since grown to have users around the world. It is also a story about how a software company needs to change as technology changes in order to grow.Zappy01 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the admin who closes the AFD. Zappy01's sole work on the project is this article see [21]. And I note from his talk page, this article was nominated for CSD when it was created. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Sure, the article as it exists reads as a PR piece, but that doesn't detract from the notability of the subject. A quick read of related Google links shows the company more or less invented the CPQ space. From what I read, they recently underwent a name change and notability based on outside sources should also include coverage under the names Firepond and Clear With Computers (CWC), for which I'm turning up LOTS of hits in a very cursory Google search. Is #2 in the original nom even a valid argument? I don't think so; a dearth of qualified editors hardly means a subject is non-notable. #1 is dubious as well -- there are 8 references and the article is a stub, meaning more work is needed; we can't delete every stub just because it needs improvement -- that's what the stub tag is for! It needs cleanup and expansion for sure, but deletion would be wholly inappropriate. B.Rossow · talk 13:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is largely unreferenced and I note you removed the tag that has been there since 2008. Please don't remove the tag until that problem is addressed. Articles reads as a PR piece is definitely a reason to delete. Remove the PR material and there would be no article. #2 is very relevant as it appears wikipedia is being used for promotional purposes, which is not allowed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the History section, which does indeed read like a PR piece and needs to be trimmed considerably, the article is well-referenced. Tag that section if you like, but the article overall has adequate citations in the areas that matter, particularly as a stub. You clearly have a bone to pick with this article, but please try to be objective. B.Rossow · talk 17:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, just now I actually took the time to check the few references provided for the History section and the vast majority of the info included there is drawn from the cited references. Perhaps every sentence doesn't have a footnote, but the information is found in the referenced material. Perhaps you'd like better (if redundant) footnotes, but the references are there if you actually take the time to read. B.Rossow · talk 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I clearly don't have any issues or a bone to pick and resorting to personal attacks like the above is not going to persuade me this article has merit in it worth saving; quite the opposite. Wikipedia is not free webspace for advertising a company. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a personal attack but a simple observation. If you would take the time to compare the article side by side with its references in two separate windows, as I did, you'd see that the citations cover the vast majority of the text in the article that you claim is unreferenced. I utterly fail to understand why you don't get that. On a more final note, I'm not at all interested in convincing you as your mind is clearly made up; I post this solely for the benefit of others who may be interested in taking more time to critically evalueate what's there rather than taking your [incorrect] word for it that it's "largely referenced." B.Rossow · talk 16:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, I will now note that I have done significant editing to the page to remove PR-sounding language and to add additional third-party references located via simple Google searches (which in itself should demonstrate the notability of the subject, if I can find numerous third-party articles referencing FPX in a matter of minutes). B.Rossow · talk 17:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it still doesn't meet notability per WP:ORG. You know the continued personal attacks are quite likely to have the contrary effect to what you're trying to achieve. If you wish to provide a convincing argument to retain this article, that is best achieved by referring to policy rather than launching personal attacks against the nominating editor or by edit warring to remove tags that indicate improvement is required. Both behaviours are counter productive to your end goal. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of the refs are company press releases or corporate websites, and others don't seem to say what is claimed (eg "best known" claim in the lede is not backed up by the salesforce.com entry given) so referencing doesn't seem to be up to scratch. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability in that is doesn't sound particularly notable to begin with and the sources used do not rise to the level of demonstrating notability per Wikipedia's standards. Repeated press releases, trade magazine puff pieces/paid ads and so forth are trivial coverage, regardless of how short or long they are. Considering how many links are given with none of them being names of note it suggests that there are no good sources available and the person who put it together knew that was the best he or she had to work with. DreamGuy (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, per all the "deletes" above. Fails WP:ORG, cites don't establish notability.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability and advertising issues. Out of the references currently in the article, most appear to be about the CEO himself, and others are either primary sources (directory listings, PR, etc) and a couple awards- this article does not establish lasting notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Space Theory[edit]

Quantum Space Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A new theory of the universe probably being promoted by its creator. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —RJH (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—At the current time, this topic doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. There are a few mentions in journal articles only. Hence I can't support a keep.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Independent of this author I have also read or seen this theory mentioned in books or on television shows. The author of this article probably did not invent Quantum Space Theory. The author has provided several references to where this theory can be found. There are some very notable theoretical physicists that support this theory such as Petr HoYava. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - interesting idea, but it may be too undeveloped or too new for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Could be made a lot better and more info added to it. It is in a sorry state at the moment. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as junk science unless shown otherwise. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - The billions spent on Large Hadron Collider to find a single particle that might confirm at least an aspect of Quantum Space Theory the Higgs Boson.String theory and quantum mechanics may just be theories, however, to call it Junk science is a bit harsh. Every theoretical physicist in the world is looking for proof of multiple planes of existence. Have a look at this it may help explain it to the non-initiated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBrIBs3YRWI Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The few sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination are just accidental juxtapositions of these three words - nothing to do with any theory that posits two time dimensions. Similarly the irrelevancies brought up above about Petr Hořava, the Large Hadron Collider, the Higgs Boson and multiple planes of existence and the linked interview with Michio Kaku (which I have just watched) have nothing to do with this so-called theory. Golgofrinchian seems to be confusing mainstream scientific investigation of the possibility of more dimensions than the familiar 3+1 with this piece of fringe speculation. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear non-notable fringe. I just followed the links from the references. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BigDom 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switch (video game)[edit]

Switch (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion. Freeware game made with RPG Maker. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability demonstrated in the article. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closing as moot. Article was deleted already by User:Orangemike citing WP:CSD#G7, requested by the main editor. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart's Group Valuation Model[edit]

Stuart's Group Valuation Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find sources for SGVM meaning "Start-up General Valuation Model" but not one called "Stuart's" on Google, GBooks or GNews. Based on the searches it seems doubtful that the significant impact required against the general notability guideline can be met using independent reliable sources. PROD removed without explanation, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this article is eager to tell me that The ease of use and quality of the analysis has seen use in the model grow on a exponential basis within many large industries and corporations, it seems to be much shyer about describing the model or its operation. After reading this I haven't a clue what it is. I call that patent nonsense and likely coatrack spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. I am speedy deleting this. The result of this AFD is a no-brainer, and allowing this article to exist (and be caught by mirrors) simply adds to add publicity to a newstory of a stupid girl who made a life-wrecking self-destructive mistake. A racist rant on youtube is WP:NOT encyclopedic. The fact that it made a couple of newsheadlines is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. In the unlikely event this story gains traction, we can debate it again in a few weeks. Scott Mac 09:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Wallace (UCLA Student)[edit]

Alexandra Wallace (UCLA Student) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook case of an individual notable for only one event, and so not deserving of an article. The event itself is unlikely to receive lasting coverage, meaning a move is unlikely to be appropriate. Note that this article was created before at Alexandra Wallace (student), but was deleted under G10.   -- Lear's Fool 08:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BLP1E policy cited by nominator. VQuakr (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool 08:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool 08:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E policy. Also from news media the subject unintentionally released it to the world and now she has recanted her video. Article if it stays will potentially risk being coattrack and vandalism and served as a lightning rod for people who has nothing better to do on wikipedia. --Visik (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been, you'll notice the history of Alexandra Wallace was so badly vandalised that many of the page revisions had to be suppressed.  -- Lear's Fool 08:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - texbook BLP1E case, and a magnet for abuse that has necessitated suppression. Nothing else needs to be said - Alison ❤ 09:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BigDom 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Trevor Sitch[edit]

Charles Trevor Sitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was blanked by a new user who has a username which is the same as the article in question. I'm taking this to mean that the person in question doesn't want a biography on Wikipedia. While we can't just remove articles because people don't want them, this is a BLP and, after doing a quick search, the only significant coverage I can find is [22], which I don't think can be considered independent, as it is published by the club he was a board member on. To sum up, I don't believe we should have a BLP on a person of fringe notability who does not want the article to exist. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24 appreciate your thoughts. What is a bop? Sorry blp not bop— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlessitch (talk • contribs) 3:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McElwain[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Thomas McElwain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was re-created after deletion from previous AfD. Reasons for deletions from previous time holds true again. Person appears to be a non-notable docent. Has published some articles, but I can't find much. Says he is at the University of Stockholm. He is not listed when I searched on the Univ. site, but some published articles had him there in the past. Bgwhite (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. No notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • 'Speedy delete G4 and salt. This article is not the same as the one that was deleted, but rather is significantly worse. And as the deleted version said, his docent position is "a largely honorary position with few or no teaching duties," so if holding that position is the best that can be said for him it's not much. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparent claim to notability in article is that "He is well-known for his conversion from Christianity to Shi'a Islam." However, Google News Archive search for Thomas McElwain Islam OR muslim gives only one hit, and even that isn't significant coverage. I found no reviews of his book "Islam in the Bible" on either GNews Archive or GScholar, so he doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. I'm no expert on our WP:salting policy but note that this article hasn't been repeatedly recreated following deletion as the first deletion discussion resulted in 'Keep'. Qwfp (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. repeatedly recreated without improvement. Subject just isn't notable RadioFan (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:CRIN. --Selket Talk 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Barnett[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alex Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Personal Page. Problems with notability. Please provide reasons to why this person is relevant and needs to be included in wikipedia. -- Throwaway2011 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom. Please close seven days after 06:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, the only sources are statistical references, which means there's nothing to support an actual article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Community (season 2). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Myths and Ancient Peoples[edit]

Messianic Myths and Ancient Peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I love Community as much as the next girl, but not every episode will meet notability guidelines. This is one such episode. There is no information here that isn't already included on the main episode list. In fact, the episode list for season 2 contains this information plus a summary. I am gonna have to go ahead and request AfD. At this time, there is an insufficient amount of external content specific to this episode. Valid sources currently offer one of three things: plot summary, ratings, critical review/recap. Per Wikipedia's style guidelines for television episodes, in order to be considered notable, an episode article needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The MOS guideline for writing about fiction clarifies that "the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." As with most individual television episodes, it is unlikely that these requirements can be met at this point.

I have considered merging - but as previously stated, there is nothing in this article that wasn't simply C+P from the main list. Redirect may still be an option, but that seems like an unnecessary step. In the main list, linked articles currently point to genuinely notable episodes in the series' history - leaving this episode as an internal WP link (just to redirect back to itself) seems too convoluted and is misleading at first glance. Deletion is a much better option in this case, as absolutely no new information will be lost. ocrasaroon (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think there is a policy that WP is not a TV directory. Borock (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into season article there is no compelling reason to delete this stub or even bring it to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or if indeed things are already entirely covered in the target, redirecting will suffice. Redirects are cheap and there is rarely a good reason to turn an article that can be upmerged into a redlink. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and nothing to merge. 97198 (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to episode list, and (obviously) unlink the link found there. That way, anyone who searches for the episode will find what they are looking for relatively easily. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justus Weiner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Justus Weiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person seems to be only notable for one event, being involved in a controversy about what he wrote about another person. The introduction gives some general facts about his life and career without making any real claim to notability, then the article gets into the controversy and spends most of its time there. Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Much of the information on the dispute is included in a lengthy footnote in the Edward Said article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I wrote already on the article discussion, the article reflects the image cultivation of Weiner and his camp and is based on highly biased "sources" (JCPA, frontpagemag,...) which are to be attributed to this camp. revision, taking into account more objective views, is one possibility. But it could well be that this person for itself isn't notable enough and that the essence of the article can be moved to the Edward Said article.--Severino (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weiner is the author of multiple published and widely reviewed books and is thus notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:AUTHOR. This article can be expanded and improved, I see no policy based justification for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The claim that the person is notable for one event is incorrect. He is a scholar, has published articles in academic journals as well as major peridocals of high standing. The entry should not be deleted. --ResidentRevenant (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whole his main notoriety in the news was with regard to Said (even making multiple mentions in the NYT), his other works are widely cited (huge number, in fact, per Google Scholar - not "google"). [23] shows that Weiner is not a "one trick pony." Collect (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a very well sourced article about a notable person. He has lots of published works, and there are lots of articles about himself.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marokwitz, ResidentRevenant, Collect. Not an earth-shaking figure, but not unworthy of a short article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. FIX this article, which is terrible. Carrite (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up Person appears to pass notability requirements; article needs to be improved. -- Avi (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- definitely a one trick pony; if it weren't for his misguided academic stalking and character assassination of Said, nobody would know a thing about this guy. All his notability comes from the Said incident (just look through and actually read the google scholar links mentioned above); and it is more than well covered in the Said article itself. If we keep the article, it might be better reframed as "Justus Weiner Edward Said controversy" or something rather than as a bio. csloat (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Collect. Inspecting the Google scholar links as recommended above I find that years before the Said controversy he was described as a domain expert, and was publishing articles in well known journals of international law that were subsequently cited extensively by other scholars. Easily meets the notability standards. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? Cited extensively by other scholars? This should be interesting. csloat (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico national under-22 football team[edit]

Mexico national under-22 football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not needed since the Mexico U-22 caps will count as a full senior international cap in Copa America matches. GoPurple'nGold24 03:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no such thing as a Mexican under-22 team; rather, the Mexican senior side will represent them at the competition, but it has been decided by the Mexican FA to only use players under the age of 22 (to give them experience or whatever). GiantSnowman 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but an article on the Mexican U23 team or Olympic team would probably be valid. In such an article, reference to the nature of the team playing as the official side would be appropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under CSD A7 by User:DragonflySixtyseven. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics of Life[edit]

Lyrics of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of of notability, most references link to about.com, only the quotes are referenced. Documentary is 10 minutes long (even though this is not a criteria)... really? Goes on and on. Also one of the external links goes to the Black Swan website. MobileSnail 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) MobileSnail 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nachman Kahana[edit]

Nachman Kahana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication he meets WP:BIO. The article has only one reliable secondary source, and that's actually an obituary of his brother, not him. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a minor rabbi, author of a marginal talmudic work. -- Y not? 02:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of his coverage is in Hebrew language media, but searches reveal he has received somewhat substantial coverage in English language sources. [24][25][26][27] --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources in those google searches just mention him in passing. Many are just obits of his brother. I see no indication he meets WP:BASIC. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • They all "mention him in passing"? That's a stretch.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K., which sources are specifically about him, then? As opposed to say, sources that quote him on a topic, or sources on organizations he belongs to, etc. Is there, for example, a newspaper or magazine article about Kahana? Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of him until now. Most of what I found were a lot of articles by him but not much 3rd-party stuff about him of any significance -- at least not in English. Rooster613 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard of you before today, yet I don't claim it diminishes your notability in any way.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayjg. --BozMo talk 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relatively well known and greatly respected in Settler circles. Here is another source about him, not his more famous brother. Check out the website if you have not already.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just per all the reliable sources cited in the article, plus more in Hebrew as mentioned here, part of a very notable rabbinical family, and the works he wrote. IZAK (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Sussex bus crash[edit]

2001 Sussex bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. we don't report every fatal crash in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NOTNEWS states that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." A bus crash that killed several people is by no means routine, so this should not be judged under that policy. The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT, which requires an event to have long-term coverage and lasting impact. At first glass this appears to fail massively... but this suggests otherwise. Regional coverage from seven years later which mentions the creation of a charity as a direct result of the crash is certainly better from a notability point of view than what's there at present. Not enough by itself, but this would appear to be less clear cut than the four above !votes suggest. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Boyz II Men[edit]

20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Boyz II Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. Still doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS as there are no secondary sources to be found; albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You'll have to show where this album has been "mentioned in multiple reliable sources". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isn't the Allmusic review alone sufficient to keep the article? I know there's a general bias here at Wiki against "20th Century Masters" compilations, and I know that notability isn't inherited, but as an encylopedia isn't it our duty to inform and isn't it reasonable to assume that a reader interested in a notable band would also be interested to know what tracks are on a compilation? Why force them to go find the information at another source when we have the information right here? WP:IAR allows us to use good judgement here and not stick to the letter of the law. Here's another source. Robman94 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable album, no secondary sources. MoondogCoronation (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the commentary of Robman94 above and IAR. Strikerforce (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a release of a notable group on a major label, and it is widely distributed internationally. Allmusic review qualifies as significant independent coverage in reliable source. Onthegogo (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter/Reflections[edit]

Winter/Reflections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. Still doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS as there are no secondary sources to be found; albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are secondary sources around, though on the brief side - an allmusic review, and this from Google News, which appears to be from a Korean news website. Since the group is very notable, all the article content is verifiable (although the release date in the article appears to be wrong), and there are a couple of sources available, I don't really see a compelling reason to delete this. Would we really have a better encyclopedia if this was deleted?--Michig (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "review" from Allmusic isn't a review at all but rather a recursive, three-sentence summary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01*:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There shall be no prejudice against speedy renomination, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicon[edit]

Omnicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At best a minor character in the Transformers franchise which need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- unsourced article about a minor group of fictional characters. Reyk YO! 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what the hell? "At best a minor character in the Transformers franchise which need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article"? "'need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article"? That's some confusing wording. Also, as Reyk said, this is a group of characters. Not 'a character. Sometimes I wonder if you just copy-paste your deletion rationales withoutactually checking if they're appropriate. NotARealWord (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The nominator clearly didn't read the article, he is just pasting the same justification at random to Transformers related articles. It's a group of characters from a anime series, which is mentioned on List_of_Transformers:_Energon_characters#Omnicons, so that might be appropriate. Mathewignash (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reliable third person information to support the article notability and you know it talk Dwanyewest (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination is complete pap, and proves you didn't even read the article. Proof of your bad faith, and blatant attempt to disrupt Wikipedia with your nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because you don't like people like myself and others nominating Transformers which are poor and unsupported by anything other than PROVEN unreliable fansites doesn't mean they shouldn't be nominated for deletion. If there is a mediocre Transformers article there is normally a high likelyhood Mathewignash either created or contributed too it Dwanyewest (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know,even though I'm not for keeping this, Mignash does have a point. It's not easy to take your nominations as good faith if it seems like you don't actually look at the articles. NotARealWord (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One poorly incorrectly worded nomination does not demonstrate a catalogue of bad faith nominations.Mathewignash likes accusing myself and others who don't think mediocore articles merly out of of malicous spite and nothing more. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first suspicious thing. You recently AfD-ed the type of articles you had earlier suggested to merge. With some rather strange wording (see here for elaboration on that). I also recall at some point last year you just copypasted your delete votes across multiple pages, even when it wasn't quite relevant. NotARealWord (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I corrected it later when i saw the mistake in that nomination. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By, "that nomination", you mean which thing? The copypasta-ing was from you voting in other people's nominations, among other (inappropriate) things, not your own nominations, if I recall correctly. NotARealWord (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were complaining about a typo mistake I made in another nomination but nevertheless. I have not done anything illegal or against wikipedia's rules to my knowledge. It not illegal to nominate more than one article at once. If it is an issue of how I word nominations I shall be more explicit in the future. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know what inappropriate things have I done in nominations not mine. I would like to know what I am being accused of. But I feel its diverting from this nomination. No doubt Mathewignash will use sources with at best tenuous relevant to justify keeping this article active (as he has history of it). I still believe this article has insufficient sources to support this article notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh it is not illegal to "nominate more than one article at once". I've done a lot of that. But please, don't sound like you were too lazy to check what the article subject is. The "inappropriate things" you've done are basically that, not paying attention to the articles and stuff discussed/nominated when commenting/voting. Or at least sounding like you don't (see this reply I left to a comment you put as a non-AfD example.) NotARealWord (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think something important here is that whether you like the article or not, whether it fits the guidelines or not, other people put work into it. From the looks of the history, over a dozen registered editors added to this article. If you want to come in and delete other people's hard work, at the very least you should be required to read and understand the article and give it the respect those writers deserve. Putting in some cut-and-paste reasoning, one that's not even correctly describing the article, without any actual research is a major sign of disrespect to your fellow authors. I've seen lots of articles I don't like, but I don't try to delete them, I try to IMPROVE them, or I leave them to those who know more about the subject. Mathewignash (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mathewignash, Dwanyewest and NotARealWord, keep it calm and maintain the discussion fresh. Do not bring personal bias to a AfD, it is not within the scope of this project. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Aston Martin Vanquish. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin Vanquish S[edit]

Aston Martin Vanquish S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Aston Martin Vanquish S is simply a tuned version of an existing car, the Aston Martin Vanquish. It is therefore analogous to the LP670-4 version of the Lamborghini Murcielago, the GTO version of the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, or the Super Sport version of the Bugatti Veyron. None of these special trims have -- or need -- their own page; they are covered as sub-models within the parent article. This should be true of the Vanquish S. I would have proposed this as a merge, but the Vanquish article already contains almost the entire text of the Vanquish S article, so a merge is superfluous. Sacxpert (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the user has done a good job on the page. He has put lots of infomation therefore I think it should be Keeped. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't deny that there is useful information, but that information has been (largely) included in the Aston Martin Vanquish, which is where I'd say it belongs, as a section heading. We don't have separate pages for the 599 GTO, the Murcielago SV, the Veyron SS, or the various iterations of the Spyker C8. The Vanquish S simply isn't distinct enough, on its own merits, to warrant its own page. Sacxpert (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom. Even though the article is well written and good effort have been used on it, it does not have notability, because it is a limited and tunned version of a existent car. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lack of debate makes this a no quorum closure, with no prejudice against a speedy renomination.   -- Lear's Fool 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodypop[edit]

Bodypop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of meeting WP:MUSIC#Albums, lacks coverage to show independent notability. Aside from original research this article is little more than a track listing. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No indication of notability of this album. WP:SPEEDY#A9

Incidently this band has a main article And One, a discog article And One discography, 4 album articles Anguish (album), Flop!, Aggressor (And One album) and Bodypop, and a couple of single articles.Sometimes (And One song), Zerstorer (And One song) (as well as 3 others currently under Afd discussion. None of these articles makes any vague attempt to establish notability apart from one unsourced mention of a 'best newcomer award' from an unspecified body and a few attempts to inherit notability from the bands they have covered or aspired to copy. I'm not saying the band isn't notable (I don't really feel qualified to judge it) but there really needs to be some attempt at sourcing or else a major cleanup here. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naratip Phanprom[edit]

Naratip Phanprom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, can't find anything to verify this guy. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new evidence which shows notability. GiantSnowman 14:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per source found by Phil Bridger. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment did play in Singapore Cup and does appear to have played for maybe 3 different Thai Premier League clubs but it is a bit sketchy for one who does not read Thai, and as his number for previous clubs was 22 and he was a goalkeeper, it is uncertain whether he took to the field in any league match.--ClubOranjeT 09:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • additional cmt Names are sometimes spelt Narathip and Phanphrom or even Panphrom.--ClubOranjeT 10:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Beyoncé Knowles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BET Presents Beyoncé[edit]

BET Presents Beyoncé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only content in this article is the extensive track listing and an infobox. After a web search I found only an amazon sale page. No reviews, no sales/chart info. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BET_Presents_Beyonc%C3%A9&action=edit&section=1[reply]
  • Redirect to the already much more well-cited and well-known B'Day Anthology Video Album, a later release with most of this same content without the retailer-exclusive pack in. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose redirecting it; the Anthology Video album is not really related to this DVD. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article into Anthology Edition article. I'd like to assure that awards aren't a factor for notability, many albums out there are notable and don't receive a single award. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only similarities between this video and the B'Day Anthology is two music videos. Otherwise they are unrelated which is why I prefer deletion. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation[edit]

The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

foundation of questionable notablity WuhWuzDat 08:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Spent some time on Google looking at this foundation. Seems to have significant involvement with enviromental and social issues in the Canadian arctic. Article itself is well done. Seki1949 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain why the hundreds of sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed in the nomination are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be nice if the user Wuhwuzdat would not bite the newcomer, if you think it needs to be edited for it to be clearer and more concise I invite you to do so. The references and links are all valid and credible, also the foundation seems to be fairly important to major issues in Canada further bolstering its importance to remain on wikipedia. 15688577a (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — 15688577a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This foundation has been around for nearly half a century and has clearly left an imprint worthy of encyclopedic coverage. A fairly well done article to boot, not spammy in the least. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.   -- Lear's Fool 13:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bayliss[edit]

Kevin Bayliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Article about a voice actor who works on video games. No evidence of notability sufficient to meet WP:GNG let alone WP:CREATIVE andy (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan Botwood. andy (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – While not all Rare employees (current and former) fail notability standards, I could not find anything substantive in which to build an article with. There's this one passing mention from GamesTM magazine here, but that's all I can find. –MuZemike 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not significant enough (not to denigrate his work) to pass GNG or BIO notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Marauders[edit]

Madras Marauders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable article about an amateur group in a college. all refs are their promotional blogspot and youtube links. edits by an WP:SPA and from the IP addr of that college Arjuncodename024 16:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable cricket club which hasn't played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket and is of no historical importance. Per WP:CRIN it is non-notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like an in-joke by a few cricket playing students from NIT. Lines like "Willow Cup is the annual intra-college cricket tournament of NIT Calicut - equivalent to the World Cup in international cricket" should be indicative. Tintin 03:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Joseph Swanson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Peter Joseph Swanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines or the subject notability guidelines for authors; there does not seem to be enough coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems promotional in intent. I don't think being a self-published author is necessarily a killer in terms of encyclopedia-worthiness, but this article gives us nothing of import about the subject and a Google search shows a fan club and a lot of seemingly self-produced material. Delete without prejudice against recreation at a later date, assuming third-party sources appear over time... Carrite (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note AfD is malformed; WP's search engine does not care if there are underlines between words, but Google's does. Checking Books and News yields no hits until spaces are used instead. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Pardon, I never use those links, so I didn't notice. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traphik[edit]

Traphik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable "musician" WuhWuzDat 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.. "non notable" besides the fact that he was ranked number by BILLBOARD and published in their tangible issue as well. This "Wuhwuzdat" guy is a simply just wants the page down for some reason. Kevinbarlow (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 01:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs expansion (perhaps further information about his early life?), he is new artist, as time passes by, the article eventually gets expanded and new things are added, but there is enough info there, that with a further research, would make it reach notability, verifiability and so on. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wave power. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floating wave power plant[edit]

Floating wave power plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable: I cannot find news paper articles on this technology and company, see e.g. this search. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - The manufacturer of a product that harnesses this energy is not significant to the article. There are other articles that contain much of the same information such as Wave power. The graphics provided would also serve well on the Wave Power article. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Ivec01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have tones of test data. Two large marine engineering companies do commercial design for Bass Straight. Please help me to improve Floating Wave Power Plant article. I really do not have editor experience but have plenty of data, video and images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivec01 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But do you have reliable sources? Unless the plant has been written about in newspapers, journals, books, or other such sources that are independent of the subject, it fails the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selected content to Wave power. As Golgofrinchian noted, some of the images and content may be usable in another article. However, given that the article was created by Ivec01 (talk · contribs), and given that the majority of links go to ivec.com.au, I have grave concerns about this article. At best, there's just an editor with a conflict of interest favouring links for his company. At worst, it's an outright spam attempt. However, it does look like there's some baby in the bathwater here that can be used elsewhere. —C.Fred (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to B.T.R. (album). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Even Matters[edit]

Nothing Even Matters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home.co.uk[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Home.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains only unreliable sources and is written like an advertisement. Alpha Quadrant talk 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajhesh vaidhya[edit]

Rajhesh vaidhya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability questionable. No independent sources. Eeekster (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added some references, including one from The Hindu which establishes that he won the 2010 Kalaimamani award for his veena playing. I think that gives notability. I cleaned up the article and added a refimprove tag. A related article that should probably have an afd discussion is Vegam, a movie Vaidhya directed the music for. It has no references and (probably) is not notable, as the mentions I saw of it were minor and negative...but I digress. Oh, one more thing, the title of the article, should it stay, should be changed so that his last name is capitalized (I didn't do it, in case I'm wrong). Nihola (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Y Bandana (album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dal dy Drwyn/Cân y Tân[edit]

Dal dy Drwyn/Cân y Tân (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable songs. Article's creator claims that the winning of an award by a magazine establishes notability, but I disagree. Strikerforce (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Plenty of scope for merging the track into the article of the band who wrote it. And for notability sake, I would be happier if the award the song won had its own article or even the publication that runs the award. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to M60 machine gun. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mk43 Machine Gun[edit]

Mk43 Machine Gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Mk43 Machine Gun is know as the Mk43/M60E4 General Purpose Machine Gun. The topic seems to be covered sufficiently by M60 machine gun#M60E4/Mk43 Mod 0/1. The article sources itself to a copyrighted editorial uploaded into wikimedia.org. See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/MK43Editorial.pdf (How is such an upload even possible?) M60E4 was deleted in 2005 as blatant copyright violation from M60E4.Mk43.pdf.[29] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I separated this from the existing M60 page is because there are MANY variations of the M60 and the Mk43, although called a M60E4, is different enough from the M60 that it shouldn't be under the M60 main header.
Additionally, the M60 page is HORRIBLE. I am not being defensive here, but why not nominate IT for deletion? It is a blatantly skewed by someone favoring the 240 and pretty much only references design flaws. It doesn't even give a sufficient history of the weapon. It has been flagged for being biased and needing citations, etc, for months, why isn't it up for deletion?
And I do feel like it's "biting the newbie" just because it's not perfect. I would like to learn how to do it right! I would like to be able to write a flawless article that doesn't get flagged, but it is hard when you're starting out! Why not HELP me? p.s. Bahamut I am a girl :) but thank you for not wanting me to get overwhelmed. I just feel like people are saying, x, y and z are wrong instead of trying to teach me how to make it better. Thanks. Littlemslawandorder (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, apologies for the gender issue (there's actually been quite a bit of buzz lately about the gender gap on Wikipedia, so I'm pleased to see a new member of the fairer sex). Try not to take the deletion nomination personally; it's all part of the encyclopedia improvement process, and if you take it as a lesson learned instead of harsh criticism, you'll be writing better articles in no time.
The main issue (after the copyright isues, which can be easily resolved by some re-working) here is that the references don't really establish that this particular variant is notable independently of the main weapon platform (i.e. the way the M4 carbine is independent of the M16 rifle). We generally try not to split off sub articles like this unless article size demands it, and that's not an issue at the M60 article.
If you really have the resources you claim, then you'd be helping out much more effectively to edit the M60 article and improve it. Much of what you've written for this version could easily be transferred over, if properly referenced. Your efforts there would be much better appreciated, and if you do build the article up to the point that splitting makes sense, then that's an option you can take up for discussion at talk:M60 machine gun.
It also sounds like you could use some editor support and collaborative tools. Since you seem interested in firearms, you could try joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force. If you ask there, somebody might be willing to mentor you in the specific nuances of writing these kinds of articles. Another good place to start is reading policies and guidelines and the Five pillars. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to M60 machine gun#M60E4/Mk43 Mod 0/1. This topic appears to be covered sufficiently there, but this title is absolutely searchable. I would prefer to keep the history intact underneath a redirect in case anything needs to be merged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: it looks like lifebaka and Moonriddengirl have taken care of the copyright issues, so now we can just address the notability. The rationale I presented in my merge !vote still stands. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triana Orpheus[edit]

Triana Orpheus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has only one source, and it has no third party or real world coverage. Most of The Venture Bros. are not notable, it currently fails WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 10:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to the character list article. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the sake of building a consensus. The source doesn't really go into reception. Need independent reliable sources that can WP:verify notability and why this is significant. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Byron Orpheus[edit]

Doctor Byron Orpheus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source, this Venture Bros. character has no citations and no real world or third party coverage to establish the notability. I doubt that the character is notable, this article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. JJ98 (Talk) 10:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:PLOT and lack of sources to indicate notability Yaksar (let's chat) 04:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one ref, which is not reliable. 50% is the plot and other 50% is the "History and activities on the show", which is original research.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The lack of sources is concerning. This character is however shown on almost every episode of The Venture Brothers. A good deal of effort went into this page and it seems the main editor is making good faith effort in presenting the character. However, if they cannot provide more reliable sources it should be removed. Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to no reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_March_17&oldid=1142637568"